X 




A DEBATE 



ON 

UNIVEKSALISM: 

HELD IN 

WARSAW, KENTUCKY, MAY, 1844, 

BETWEEN h ■ 

REV. E M : PINGREE, 

PASTOR OF THE FIRST UNIVERSALIST SOCIETr, LOUISVILLE, KY=, 
AND 

REV. JOHN L. WALLER, A. M. , 
• 

PASTOR OF THE GLEN'S CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH, WOODFORD CO.j KY. 
REFORMED BY A STENOGRAPHER, AND REVISED BY THE DISPUTANTS. 



CINCINNATI- 

WM. L. &ENDENHALL, PRINTER, 106 MAIN STREET. 
1845. 



27100 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by 

E. M. PlNGREE AND J. L. WaLLER, 

In the Clerk's Office for the District Court of Ohio. 




TO THE PUBLIC. 

The following Debate is commended to your candid and 
indulgent consideration. The question discussed is of 
thrilling interest — deeply affecting the most momentous 
concerns of the human family. We are conscious that the 
subject is presented in a desultory way — an evil necessa- 
rily attendant on all oral discussions. Our endeavor has 
been to present it to the public as it was spoken. We 
were furnished by the stenographer with our respective 
speeches, which we revised separately; and then met and 
examined each other's revision, and we believe that we 
have, as nearly as possible, given you the Debate as it 
occurred. Let those who read compare the points made 
and argued, with the Sacred Scriptures, in the fear of 
God, and with an earnest desire to know the truth. 

E. M. Pingb.ee, 

Cincinnati, Feb., 1845. John L. Waller. 



PROPOSITION AND RULES OF DISCUSSION, 

AGREED UPON BETWEEN JOHN L. "WALLER AND E. M. PINGREE, 

Question — Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness 
and salvation of all men ? 

Mr. Pingree affirms : Mr. Waller denies. 

RULES. 

i. The discussion shall be held in Warsaw, Kentucky, 
to commence on Tuesday, May 28th, and continue four 
days — five hours each day. 



iv 

S. Each disputant shall have the privilege of speaking 
twice, in speeches of forty-five minutes each, during the 
forenoon's debate, (that is, from 10 a. m. until 1 p. m. ;) 
and of speaking once each, in speeches of one hour each, 
during the afternoon's debate, (that is, from three, until 
five o'clock, p. m.,) of every day. 

3. Mr. Pingree will open, and Mr. Waller will conclude 
the debate, at each meeting. In the closing speeches of 
the whole debate, no new matter shall be introduced. 

4. The books introduced into the debate, by either 
disputant, shall be free for the inspection and use of the 
other. 

5. The disputants are not to indulge in any personal 
reflections toward each other; but shall treat each other 
with respect and courtesy. 

6. Neither disputant shall interrupt the other while 
speaking, except for the purpose of correcting a misap- 
prehension of what he has said ; or for explanation. 

7. Each disputant shall choose a Moderator, and these 
two shall choose a third, to preside over the debate, to 
keep order, and to see that the above rules are observed, 
as well as to discharge such other duties as are usually 
performed by Moderators in similar discussions. 

Signed, E. M. Pingree, Affirmant. 

John L. Waller, Respondent, 

March 26, 1844. 



4 



DEBATE ON UNIVERSALIS}!. 



At ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, May 28, 1844, the 
disputants, the moderators, and a large audience being 
present, at the Christian Church, in Warsaw, Kentucky, 
Mr. Abbott, one of the moderators, having read aloud the 
foregoing proposition and rules for discussion, the debate 
commenced. 

[me. ping-ree's first speech.] 

My Respected Friends — Before entering directly upon 
the subject of discussion before us, it will be proper for 
me to offer a few remarks of an introductory kind; and 
this will be the character of my first speech, which will, 
probably, not occupy all the time allotted to me. 

I propose to name briefly — very briefly, the circum- 
stances which introduced this discussion : Mr. Waller, my 
friend, who is engaged in it, delivered one or two sermons 
in this place, against the doctrine of universal salvation. 
Some of the friends of that doctrine then invited him to a 
discussion of the subject with some one of its advocates. 
As Mr. Waller was not disposed to receive a challenge by 
proxy, I wrote to him, at the request of my friends in 
Warsaw, inviting him to a discussion; this proposition he 
did accept, and we are now here to engage in it. 

That the subject is important, very important, none will 
deny; more important than any other that can engage the 
attention of the human mind. A question involving no 
less than the destiny of all mankind, is here before us, 
and before the whole Christian world. Upon this question, 
there prevail two opposite systems of theology : one 
holding to the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men; 



DEBATE ON 



and the other to the endless misery of a portion of man- 
kind. I know there is a third,- that in these latter days, 
some hold the doctrine of the annihilation of a portion of 
mankind; — but we have nothing to do with that notion 
now. We do not find it either believed or advocated here ; 
and, therefore, I speak only of the two first named. In the 
professed Christian world it is generally admitted, that 
either all men will be ultimately happy, or some endless- 
ly unhappy. No inquiry can be more important. It 
comes home to you, and to me, and to all, with most 
thrilling power. It is desirable that the disputants, and 
hearers should devote their earnest attention to it; and it 
should be the object of the speakers, and of the hearers, 
to know the truth ; and not to gain a mere personal vic- 
tory in debate. It too often happens that on occasions of 
this sort, both the disputants and the people assembled, 
think too much of the victory and the triumph, and care 
too little for the truth. I hope that Mr. Waller and my- 
self, and all present, will seek the truth alone upon the 
question before us. 

It is desirable, too, that all out-of-doors discussion — for 
there will be much of it, (and I request it of my friends 
particularly,) should be conducted with mildness and can- 
dor, and freedom from everything that is calculated to 
excite disturbance and ill-feeling. Such a state of feeling 
may be produced, and may last for months and years; and 
remember that will be according as you and we act and 
speak upon this occasion. But if speakers and hearers pur- 
sue the proper course, discussion will do no harm, and may 
produce much good. No evil results necessarily follow 
public discussions. 

The last speech at every meeting will be made by Mr. 
Waller; (it will be perceived that I do not use the prefix 
" Brother," or the words " my antagonist," or " my op- 
ponent;" but the simple address of Mr., which is always 
respectful and proper;) and I request all who may hear his 
last speech upon each or any occasion, to be present, and 
hear my first speech on the succeeding meeting, in reply 
to it; because he may attempt to create an impression in 
his last speech unfavorable to me and to my cause ; and 
unless you are present to hear my reply, you will not 
know how the matter actually stands between us. This is 
a plain duty to yourselves, and to the one who begins the 
discussion. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



r 



With these introductory remarks, I now proceed to de- 
fine the terms of the proposition, " Do the Scriptures teach 
the ultimate holiness and salvation of all mankind?" They 
are simple and plain : there need be no mistake as to their 
import. 

About the term, "Scriptures" there is no dispute. It 
is the Revelation of God's will, and of the duty and destiny 
of man. 

The term, " Ultimate;" what does that mean? — I pro- 
pose to carefully and precisely define the terms of the 
proposition, as I intend to defend it. It is not the part of 
Mr. Waller to lead you astray by arguing points not em- 
braced in the proposition, or by putting his own construc- 
tion upon the terms of the question, as proposed for 
discussion. I do not mean, then, the holiness and salvation 
of all men in this present life, nor the holiness and salva- 
tion of all men, at death. By " ultimate" is meant a 
condition followed by no condition opposed to it — the 
immortal state; — not enduring for a few years, or five 
hundred years, or five thousand, or five millions of years; 
but final and immortal holiness and happiness. 

" Holiness and Salvation." There is no dispute as to the 
meaning of " Holiness." Every body understands the 
common signification of that word. About the term " Sal- 
vation" there may be some dispute. I will explain dis- 
tinctly and precisely what I mean by it; and what I shall 
defend. I do not mean that we shall go to heaven in our 
sins: I do not mean that. Nor do I mean that we shall go 
to heaven as we die: I do not mean that. I mean this : a 
final deliverance from sin, suffering, and death, into a state 
of immortality, incorruption, and happiness. 

The term "Salvation" has various meanings in the 
Bible. It is used to express a deliverance from temporal 
evils. It is used to express a moral and spiritual salvation 
here, by faith in the Gospel. But it is of no consequence 
to discuss the various meanings of the word as used in 
Scripture. This is the one point I am to defend : the final 
deliverance of "all men," every individual man, and 
especially all sinful men, from sin, and suffering, and 
death, into immortality, incorruption, and happiness. — ■ 
That is the proposition. This is what I have denned to be 
my meaning, and will defend ; nothing more — nothing less. 

Having stated my proposition, my course is to present 



8 



DEBATE ON 



proofs of the doctrine affirmatively: as Mr. Waller denies 
the proposition, he is to follow me, and set aside my proofs 
of it, if he can. This is his especial duty, and not to build 
up any opposite system of his own, but to set aside my 
proofs first. Till this is done, he has no right to discuss 
any other proposition, or to build up any other system op- 
posed to mine. 

I shall present but few passages from Scripture, in each 
speech — plain, explicit, and to the point. I shall not be 
drawn away from this course. It is common to present 
points to draw away one from the point in dispute, and for 
persons thus drawn away to follow where they are led. / 
shall not do this — I beg to be distinctly understood, further 
than I may have time to follow other points, after I have 
presented my own proofs. I shall devote my time to 
proving the affirmative of the proposition; if then I have 
time and think proper to do so, I shall go aside to discuss 
arguments in favor of other systems; but not otherwise. 

1 hope I shall utter no sentiment, or exhibit, even in 
tone or manner, any such spirit, through this discussion, as 
I shall have reason to be sorry for afterwards, or ashamed 
of. 1 hope we shall be influenced by nothing but a spirit 
of candor, and an honest, sincere love of truth, and a de- 
sire to establish it : because this discussion is proposed to 
be published. A reporter is present. It will go to the 
world. It will last : and if my friend, Mr. Waller, or my- 
self, are ashamed and sorry for what we have said, we 
shall be ashamed and sorry for a long time. 

I have no other remarks to make now, as introductory, 
and, therefore, enter upon the discussion by presenting 
the following argument, as the first. It is an argument 
derived from the nature and character of God, and his 
relationship to man. The inquiry is, what do the Scrip- 
tures teach to be the destiny of man? That destiny de- 
pends on the character and nature of God, and his rela- 
tionship to man. We know from Scripture the charater 
and nature of God and his relations to us, and we bring 
this to bear on the question in relation to the destiny of 
his creatures. 

There may be difficulties in interpreting the Bible. It 
was written eighteen centuries ago. The languages in 
which it was written are different from our own; and 
besides that, the same phrases are differently understood 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



now, from what they were then, in the same language. 
We bring the character and nature of God, the Author of 
the Bible, to bear on its interpretation. This all will 
readily see to be a proper mode of argument. 

What, then, are the Nature and Character of God, as 
introduced to our view by Scripture ? He is "our Father," 
"the Father of our spirits;" "the God of the spirits of 
all flesh." He is not only that, but his very Nature and 
Essence is Love. (1 John iw 8, 12.) " God is Love." It 
is his very Nature, Essence and Name. Again : God is 
Good to all. Not only is he our Father, the Father of 
our spirits, the God of the spirits of all flesh, but " he is 
Good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his 
works." As Jesus Christ, in his sermon on the mount, 
commands us to return good for evil; so he teaches us 
that God is " kind even to the evil and unthankful " — he 
is good to the sinful and unrighteous. It is well to remem- 
ber this; and that this nature of love, and this goodness in 
the Father of our spirits, are unchangeable. God is not 
mutable; he changes not. He is not one thing to-day and 
another thing to-morrow. He is always of the same mind; 
now, and through eternity. Though he may punish us 
for our sins; (and he does so, for the Scripture say we are 
judged, rewarded, or punished, according to our works:) 
yet he punishes in kindness. Being unchangeable, and 
forever the same, even if he should punish us in the 
future life, his punishments would be directed by love and 
goodness towards us, inflicted in the spirit of a Father. 
Though our punishment should last for thousands and 
millions of years, it would be for our benefit, " our profit." 
unless God changes at our death. 

This truth in reference to the relation he bears to us. 
I wish to be remembered throughout this discussion, as 
bearing upon our exposition of Scripture. We must not 
understand Scripture as teaching any doctrine opposed to 
this nature and character of God. It is no imaginary na- 
ture and character of God that I have described. It is his 
known and well understood character, as distinctly revealed 
in his own Divine Word. It was proper for me to intro- 
duce this fact in the opening of this discussion; as it has 
an important bearing upon what I shall say hereafter. 

With these remarks we leave the subject in the hands 
of our friend, Mr, Waller, for the present. 



10 



DEBATE ON 



[mr. waller's FIRST REPLY.] 
May it please the Moderator: 

Ladies and Gentlemen: — I feel that I owe it to this 
community and to myself, to explain why it is I appear 
here to defend truths which the large mass of well-regu- 
lated minds have, in all ages, taken for granted: and in 
doing so, I would remark, that this controversy was not of 
my seeking. I have all along felt almost an insuperable 
repugnance to it. True, about a year ago, at the solicita- 
tion of my friends in this place, 1 delivered two sermons 
on Universalism. I understood that the other side of the 
subject had been frequently presented here, and I sup- 
posed I had the right, without question and without um- 
brage to any, to present my views also. I had no purpose, 
and distinctly disclaimed any intention, of getting up con- 
troversy. But in the afternoon of that day, I received a 
note from Dr. Chamberlain, inquiring whether I would 
accept a challenge to discuss the subject of Universalism, 
if from a respectable source, and from such a person as 
the Universalists might designate. I replied, that it was well 
known I had said, orally and in print, that I neither sought 
nor declined controversy; hut held myself ready to pay atten- 
tion to the challenge of any respectable individual, on any 
important mooted question in theology; but that I would re- 
ceive no challenge by proxy. The tone of my refusal 
was designed to close all further correspondence on the 
subject. 

Judge then of my surprise, when, shortly after my arri- 
val home, I received a formal challenge from my friend, 
Mr. Pingree ! — and in such a shape, that in the estimation 
of my most judicious friends, there was no way of escape 
without inflicting a serious wound upon the cause of truth 
in this place. I accordingly accepted it with extreme 
reluctance. Mr. Pingree is welcome to the full benefit of 
this reluctance. I then thought, as I now think, that long 
settled truths, received by the common sense (perhaps I 
should say, the common consent) of mankind, need no de- 
fence. Opposite opinions, if left to themselves, usually 
work out their own destruction. But I had left the matter 
in the hands of my friends. They believed it best to have 
this discussion. 1 intended, as agreed upon, to have been 
here months ago. Rumor has been rife here, I under- 
stand, and it even found its way into the Universalist organ 



UNIVERSALISM. 



of the West, that I was afraid to come ! Rumor, however, 
in my own neighborhood, said I was dangerously sick. Be 
that as it may, in the providence of God, I am now here, 
prepared to defend truths, which, in my humble opinion, 
need no defence. 

Preliminary to what I am about to say, permit me to 
remark, that I mean no reflections upon the rectitude of 
intention on the part of those who advocate the affirma- 
tive of the proposition now under discussion. I am free 
to ascribe to them whatever of candor, honesty and sincer- 
ity they may justly claim to be entitled to. I impeach no 
one's motives. But I shall freely speak of facts, and fear- 
lessly canvass opinions. 

The world, for near a century past, has given birth to 
many religious knights errant; aye, not religious merely, 
but to all sorts of speculative knights errant! — individu- 
als who, judging by their self-importance, appear to esteem 
themselves the predestined agents of Providence rightly to 
adjust the crazy concerns of the world, which have ail 
gone wrong for the last sixty centuries! It would take 
the genius of a Cervantes to do justice to the Utopian 
achievements and exploits of "airy nothing" performed b}'~ 
the religious and philosophical Quixotes, who have as- 
sumed that all the world, except themselves, have been 
involved, since the beginning, in darkness and ignorance, 
and that they are bright, peculiar luminaries, culminating 
in the moral heavens, and pouring a flood of refulgence 
into the night of the understandings of misguided man- 
kind! Among the last and most chivalrous of these adven- 
turers (the redoubtable Mormon leader, perhaps, alone 
excepted) was the renowned projector of the Universalist 
crusade. But more of him anon. 

In no sentiments have men, in all ages, been more gen- 
erally agreed than in the following: First, The existence 
of God; Second, The existence of the soul after death; 
and Third, That after death there is a state of rewards and 
punishments. This is evident from the history, written 
and traditional, of all nations. And these doctrines have 
generally stood or fallen together. Hence, when some of 
the Academic school of philosophers consigned the soul to 
oblivion, they denied the existence of Deity. These were 
the speculations of heathens. When the diffusion of the 
Bible irradiated with its celestial light the minds of men, 



DEBATE ON 



everywhere the doctrines above enumerated were receivecfy 
and throughout the civilized world, the learned and the un- 
learned gave them the sanction of their most unqualified 
approval. It was reserved for the last century to produce 
men of learning and of genius, who, enjoying the light of 
revelation and of God's works, could look the smiling heav- 
ens in the face, and in defiance-of the dictates of reason, of 
conscience, of common sense and of the Bible, and in despite 
of the light and the language beaming and speaking from 
the star-spangled heavens, and all the wondrous machinery 
of the Universe, boldly to proclaim that "there is no God, 
and death is an eternal sleep." Atheism was too grossly 
absurd long to receive the countenance of men; but the 
philosophy (if I may so abuse the term) in which it origi- 
nated, gave birth to other monstrous schemes, if less hid- 
eous to the "mind's eye," yet no less calculated to lead 
men from feelings of accountability to God, and to wrest 
from the conscience of the ungodly and the sinner, the 
apprehension of a righteous retribution in the world with- 
out end. 

The doctrine which I am here to oppose, in that pecu- 
liar phase viewed by Mr. Pingree, is of modern origin — of 
very modern origin! But I see already a manifestation, 
on his part, of a disposition not to stand jam up to his 
creed, as we say in the West. There are some parts of 
his system, dearly cherished by him too, and to the de- 
fence of which he has hitherto lent the might of his pen 
and his voice, which he now seems disposed to let pass in 
neglected silence. I am surprized at his trepidation! And, 
forsooth, he has happily interpreted the question at issue 
to suit his convenience, and informs me with a very pat- 
ronizing manner, that I must follow where he chooses to 
lead! No doubt he would prefer that the deformities of 
his system should escape inspection; but I have come here 
prepared to attack Universalism as it is — in the mass; nor 
am I to be diverted or decoyed from my intention. If he- 
is ashamed of his cause, before this audience, be it so; I 
hope he may be ashamed of it to the day of his death. 
But to pass on. 

I remarked awhile ago, that we sometimes injure a truth- 
by consenting to defend it. And especially is this the case, 
where it is a truth to which the mass of intelligent minds 
have always bowed in acquiescence. The amiable Des, 



UNIVERSALISM. 



13 



Cartes unwittingly inflicted a serious wound upon truth, 
when he laid it down as a principle, that the first thing a 
philosopher ought to do, is to divest himself of all preju- 
dice, and all his former opinions; to reject the evidence of 
his senses, of intuition, and of mathematical demonstra- 
tion: to suppose that there is no God, nor heaven, nor 
earth, and that man has neither hands, nor feet, nor body. 
In a word, he is to doubt every thing of which it is possi- 
ble to doubt, and to be persuaded that every thing is false 
which can possibly be conceived to be doubtful. That the 
only proposition to be taken for granted is., "Ego cogito, 
ergo sum — I think, therefore I exist." Des Cartes did not 
mean seriously to dispute the existence of matter, but 
only to call it in question, that he might give an exhibition 
of his skill in demonstrating it. But there arose upon this, 
a sect of philosophers who told an admiring world, to its 
infinite emolument and delight, that the understanding 
acting alone entirely subverts itself, and leaves not a trace 
of evidence on any proposition! That our bodies, the 
earth, the sun, the stars, — in a word, that matter had no 
real existence, or at least, could not be proved to exist; 
that it was a mere idea — a sheer impression of the mind ! 
These absurdities, advanced with ingenious subtilty and 
-maintained with great learning, were made so captivating 
and injurious as to call forth replies from minds of the 
most giant mould! No marvel then, that Universalism has 
had its advocates, honest, sincere, subtle, intelligent. And 
let this example, too, furnish you with the reason that 
induced me to appear here as its opponent. 

On this subject, I wish to present another thought: That 
which has been received, after mature investigation, by 
mankind generally, and especially the intelligent, ought 
not to be rejected without great hesitation.. A sentiment 
or doctrine, of which men have possessed a perfect oppor- 
tunity to be well informed, and always interpreted in a 
particular way; and which, after all the means of informa- 
tion have been laid before them, and every fact and argu- 
ment in favor of an opposite doctrine have been presented, 
examined, and dismissed, certainly deserves the utmost 
respect, and possesses almost invincible presumptive proof 
of its truth, especially if the human mind is capable of 
arriving at truth. Suppose a proposition, with all the facts 
and arguments pertaining to it. were placed before a huiir 



DEBATE ON 



dred competent judges, and they should come to a unani- 
mous decision upon it; and suppose another individual 
should come forward, possessing no other advantages than 
any one of these hundred, and should deliver an opposite 
opinion, affirming that they were all wrong, and he alone was 
right — what would be the natural and inevitable conclu- 
sion? Why, if the truth of the proposition could be 
ascertained at all by these hundred and one persons, that 
the hundred were right and the one was wrong. Just so 
with the subject of future rewards and punishments. The 
learned and intelligent have had this subject in hand ever 
since the days of the Apostles, and from the day that the 
final amen was affixed to the book of Revelation, until the 
the year of our Lord 1818, when Hosea Ballou flourished, 
not an individual existed, who admitted the authority of 
the Bible, and yet denied that the wicked were punished 
and the righteous rewarded in the world to come. How 
happened it that he became in possession of more infor- 
mation on this subject, than any man that, during the 
lapse of so many centuries, had existed in the civilized 
world? Was he possessed of more intellect, more learn- 
ing? did he enjoy more of the divine light, or was he en- 
dowed with optics better adapted to pry into the Word of 
God, than any of the innumerable host of his illustrious 
predecessors? "I pause for a reply." 

I know there were those termed Restorationists; — indi- 
viduals who admit a long and excruciating state of future 
punishment, and deny its eternity. A few persons hold- 
ing this doctrine have been known to flourish, at different 
and distant intervals, from the third to the last century. 
But Restorationism and Universalism are two distinct sys- 
tems. They are not founded in the same premises — they 
do not lead to the same conclusions. They have no rela- 
tion the one to the other. The great mass of Restoration- 
ists turn with loathing from the doctrine of Universalism, 
and utterly refuse to hold communion with its advocates. 
Mark my declaration: The doctrine of Universalism as 
now professed, until A. D., 1818, had no advocate — that 
until then, there existed no one who admitted the exist- 
ence of God and the immortality of the soul, or who ad- 
mitted the truth of the Scriptures, and yet denied a future 
state of rewards and punishments. What then is the 
argument? Why, that the whole creation groaned and 



UNIVERSALISM. 



15 



travailed in birth for sixty centuries, but until the year of 
grace 1818, brought forth no man with sense enough to 
understand the Bible on one of its most thrillingly impor- 
tant doctrines, and to demonstrate the truth to mankind! 
and that this prodigy of intellect — this production of na- 
ture's long, long agony is — Hosea Ballon !! But at pres- 
ent, I forbear further comment upon this most astounding 
phenomenon. I will await the advances of my opponent. 
He says, I am not to lead, but to follow. In relation to 
the point last alluded to ? at all events, I will submit, with 
the utmost humility, to his dictation. 

I have said thus much by way of preliminary remarks. 
I shall now proceed more directly to the subject in hand. 
My only desire is that truth may prevail. God, who 
knows the hearts of all men, knows I have no other mo- 
tive. I have no disposition to remain in error. I have no 
interest but in the triumph of truth. I must now attend 
to the arguments of Mr. Pingree. 

His first argument is derived from the nature and 
character of God, and the relations he sustains to men. And 
here I must notice a principle of interpretation which he 
has laid down as applicable to the Scriptures. The prin- 
ciple is this: We must know the character of God in order 
to understand his Book. Now, the moral attributes, (his 
moral character,) to say the least, can only be learned 
from his Book. Then we cannot interpret his Book until 
we know his moral attributes, and these are to be learned 
only in his Book! This is an old monkish error, long 
since exploded. The Universalists are wofully deficient 
in the science of hermeneutics. I would respectfully ad- 
vise my opponent to give some attention to that subject. 

The principle of interpretation that 1 am now opposing 
teaches, that the Bible must first be understood theologi- 
cally, and then philologically ! — that we must first under- 
stand that which is revealed, in order to understand the 
language of the revelation! This, I repeat, is an old 
monkish absurdity. The true principle is, that we must 
first understand the language, or we cannot know what is 
revealed. How can we understand a book unless we know 
the meaning of the language in which it is written? The 
Bible must first be understood philologically, and then we 
can arrive at its theology. It is only by its language that 
we ascertain its contents. If, therefore, we find any thimj 



16 



DEBATE ON 



stated on its sacred pages in plain language, we must be 
governed by the plain and obvious import of that lan- 
guage. I will lay down the following axiom: That if we 
change the obvious meaning of the language of the Bible by 
what we learn outside of it, then we do not give its mean- 
ing at all, but have perverted it. We are not, then, to in- 
terpret a book by what we may know of its author, but by 
its language. Who ever claimed to interpret the Declara- 
tion of Independence by inquiring into the temper and dis- 
position of Thomas Jefferson? But we interpret that instru- 
ment like we do everything else in the English language ; we 
learn by the words employed, the meaning of the author. 
Hundreds who read the declaration do not know anything 
of the character of Jefferson; and many, perhaps, do not 
know that he wrote it at all. And how many books are 
there, of whose authors nothing is known! There are 
thousands. I have works in my library, many of them, 
too, of "whose authors I know nothing. Take the letters 
of Junius as an illustration; a work of almost unsurpassed 
celebrity, and of which no man knows the author. Then, 
according to my friend's rule of criticism, no man can 
understand it! 

The Bible was written in the language of men and for 
men; and it must be interpreted, like other books, by the 
laws of language. Deny this, and we are thrown upon a 
sea of speculation, without compass or chart, tempest tost 
by the conflicting elements of every wild and visionary 
theory. That I may not be thought singular, I will sus- 
tain my positions by authority. I will quote from Ernesti, 
translated by Stuart, the highest authority on principles 
of Biblical interpretation. 

" The principles of interpretation are common to sacred 
and prof ane writings. Of course, the Scriptures are to be 
investigated by the same rules as other books. * * * * 
If the Scriptures be a revelation to men, then are they to 
be read and understood by men. If the same laws of lan- 
guage are not to be observed in this revelation, as are 
common to men, then they have no guide to a right under- 
standing of the Scriptures; and an interpreter needs inspi- 
ration as much as the original writer. It follows of course, 
that the Scriptures would be no revelation in themselves; 
nor of any use, except to those who are inspired. But 
such a book the Scriptures are not; and nothing is more 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



evident than that when God has spoken to men, he has 
spoken in the language of men ; for he has spoken by men. 
and for men." P. 15. 

The principle of depending, in our interpretations, upon 
things and not upon words, is condemned; for, says our 
author, "In this way interpretation becomes uncertain, 
and truth is made to depend merely on the judgment of 
men, as soon as we depart from the words, and endeavor 
to decide upon the sense by the use of means not connec- 
ted with them. ***** The meaning is, that they 
decide from that knowledge of things which they suppose 
themselves already to possess, rather than from the words 
of the author; they decide by what they suppose he ought 
to mean, rather than by what he says." Pp. 15 and 16. 

Again: "Any method of interpretation not philological, is 
fallacious. ***** It is by the words of the Holy 
Spirit only that we are led to understand what we ought 
to think respecting things. Said Melancthon very truly: 
'The Scripture cannot be understood theologically, until it 
is understood grammatically? Luther also avers, that a 
certain knowledge of the sense of Scripture depends solely 
on a knowledge of the words." P. 16. 

Every one must perceive that Mr. Pingree's principles 
of interpretation directly contravene those just read from 
Ernesti. The latter are based in reason and common 
sense. I have demonstrated the absurdity of the former, 
and shall now proceed to notice the arguments by which 
he attempted to sustain his first position. 

He said that God was our Fatlier — his nature was love — ■ 
he was good nnto all. That this goodness and kindness is 
unchangeable. He punishes in his kindness — his punishments 
dictated by goodness. If we are not to understand this 
language to mean that God punishes sinners only for their 
good, I subscribe to this character. I propose to show 
before I am done, that sinners are not punished for their 
individual good. But I will not press this point now. I 
now, however, charge that Universalism does not make 
God good and merciful ; and if Mr. Pingree is a genuine 
Universalist, (which, from the tenderness he manifested in 
treading upon certain points in the system, during the 
progress of his last speech, 1 am led to distrust,) I charge 
him too with not subscribing to the character he has given 
of God! I will read, in proof of this, from some Univer- 

9 



18 



DEBATE ON 



salist books which my friend himself recommended to me 
as containing a fair expose of his doctrine. 

The Universalist's Guide, by Whittemore, says: "Now 
the truth is, we do not read one word in the Bible about 
saving men in a future state. Jesus was anxious to save 
people from their sins, and their errors, and bring them to 
a knowledge of the truth. He was anxious to save the 
Jews from the awful judgments that were impending over 
them, and all the apostles partook of the same solicitude- 
Paul says, (Gal. k 4,) that Jesus gave himself for our 
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world. 
The evils from which Jesus came to save men are in this 
world, and for this reason he came into thi& world to save 
them:' Pp. 253-4. 

So writes a scribe in the Universalist Israel! You 
doubtless now see why it was, that Mr. Pingree gave us 
warning that he would not defend all of his system. He 
affirms the "ultimate holiness and salvation of all men.'* 
Now, according to his "Guide," this holiness and salvation 
must take place in this life. But his same Guide tells us 
that the Jews and others were not made holy and happy, 
and were not saved in this life! Therefore the doctrine 
of Mr. Pingree, by one of his masters, is decapitated. 
But I read this to show that Universalism cannot subscribe 
to the declaration, that "God is love" while it deprives- the 
world of a Savior. I know they affirm in round phrase, 
that Jesus saves all men; but when you bring them to> de- 
tails, he saves no one. He saves them from what? Not 
punishment in a future state, for they say there is none. 
Not from punishment due to sin ; for the)' say they 
endure that. Yea, but they are saved from sin in- this 
world. So the Universalists affirm; but the Bible declares 
that "there is no man that liveth and sinneth not." Uni- 
versalism robs men of the Savior provided by our heav- 
enly Father, and that, too, by what they call God's rela- 
tions to man!! 

I will read just one proposition in the "Pro and Con of 
Universalism," another book of my friend's recommend- 
ing, "in the government of God, there is, there can be no 
r*cave from deserved punishment. P. 243. 

Let us hear from the Father of Universalism. Ballou, 
in his "Select Sermons," says: "We see, my friends, that 
there is, in the moral government of our heavenly Father, 



UN1VERSALISM. 



19 



an established administration, which secures to those who 
love and obey him a present complete reward; and one 
which delays not to give to the wicked the reward of his 
hands. To deny this, however popular the contrary opin- 
ion maybe, is a moral delirium, a fatal insanity, which 
not only exposes us to danger, but absolutely plunges us 
into trouble." Pp. 87, 88. 

Mr. Pingree, of course, believes this. It is the same 
sentiment as in the Universalist's Guide, already read and 
commented on. 

But once more. I will read from the Universalist Cir- 
culating Family Library. Mr. Everett, its editor, says: 
"They all (Universalists) agree in the sentiment that 
every man shall be justly, certainly, and adequately pun- 
ished for all his sins. : ' P. 6. 

Again, he says: "We hold that the salvation promised 
in the Scriptures is a deliverance from sin: and no more 
expect to escape just and adequate punishment for our 
transgressions, than we do to elude the vigilance of 
Almighty God. or hurl him headlong- from his throne." 
P. 35. 

So Universalism not only teaches that we have no Sav- 
ior, but that there is no forgiveness with Godl — that he 
has no mercy on sinners : that he metes out to every 
transgressor, under all circumstances, a full, complete and 
adequate punishment. Who then shall be able to stand? 
And what sort of a Father is- he when he will not forgive 
his children, though Jesus, his well-beloved Son, inter- 
cedes? — not even when they come to him heart-broken 
for their transgressions, confessing their faults and casting 
themselves before his throne, imploring his mercy by fchs 
recollections of Calvary? 

But really I had supposed that the Bible taught a differ- 
ent doctrine. I had. by some means or other, learned that 
God had said, that if we forgive men their trespasses, he 
would forgive us our trespasses. And surely the Bible 
does inform us, that Jesus instructed his disciples to pray 
to their heavenly Father, '"Forgive us our debts as ic° for- 
give our debtors.'' What, then, are we to think of thai 
system which represents him. like the cruel debtor, as 
seizing the contrite sinner by the throat, and sternly say- 
ing to the trembling penitent, "Pay me what thou owest;"' 
and then casting the poor bankrupt into prison, not to 



so 



DEBATE ON 



come out until he has paid the uttermost farthing! This 
is what Universalism means by the goodness and love 
of God! 

But I cannot pursue this subject further at present, for 
the want of time. Before I conclude, permit me to say 
to my friends, that I hope they will refrain from indulging 
any appearance of excitement or ill-feeling. This is an 
important subject — one that demands our prayerful atten- 
tion. And remember, that in a short time we must go the 
way of all the earth, where all controversy must cease. 
Good men may differ in this world, but in those bright 
abodes reserved in heaven for those that love God, we 
shall all be of one mind and of one heart. By man's 
erring mind, truth can only be clearly perceived in the 
light of eternity. My prayer to God is, that so much of 
it as is now controverted, may triumph in this discussion. 

[mr. pingree's second speech.] 
Respected Friends : — It is difficult to decide as to whom 
Mr. Waller is discussing with- whether it be with Mr, 
White, Mr. Whittemore, Mr. Ballou, Mr. Rogers, Mr. 
Everett, or with Mr. Pingree. It would seem as if he was 
discussing with all of them together. It should be under- 
stood that I am the advocate of Universalism on the pre- 
sent occasion; and that Mr. Waller should devote his 
attention to me, and to my arguments. 

What seems to trouble my friend most is, that, as be 
says, the doctrine of Universalism is new and modern, in 
his estimation. He says it is strange that all men should 
have gone astray upon the subject, and for so long a time, 
etc. What a pity my friend had not lived in the time of 
Baal's prophets, and Elijah! He would have said, if he 
had witnessed their controversy, that the prophets of Baal 
were right, because they were four hundred and fifty in 
number, and Elijah was wrong, because he was only one 
man. If he had lived in the days of Jesus Christ, he 
would have been on the side of the Jews. At that time 
you might have looked over the whole world, and what 
man of ever so enlightened a mind, had clear ideas of a 
future life'? Jesus Christ came to bring it " to light." 
But he was alone. My friend, according to the spirit of 
his argument, would have been of the number of those 
who said to him : Here you are only one man, and the 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



21 



whole world is of a contrary opinion. We will not accept 
your testimony. " Away with him! Crucify him!!" The 
world has not had these views; therefore they must be 
wrong. 

Suppose he had lived in the days of Luther. According 
to his present rule, he would have stood by the side of 
Rome and the Pope. The whole church was Roman and 
Popish; nay, was Eome and the Pope. And my friend 
would have been there. He would have told Luther to 
go away; that he was one man, right in the face of the 
whole church and all Christendom, and therefore in the 
wrong. When in after ages, a philosopher introduced 
the theory of the movements of the heavenly bodies, he 
would have been of those who condemned him to silence, 
because he stood alone, and uttered for truth what was 
new. Or when Harvey discovered the circulation of the 
blood, had my friend been there, he would have said that 
it certainly could not be so, since the whole scientific 
world denied it. He would have said to this great discov- 
erer : You are but one man alone. It is a modern dis- 
covery — away with it! 

Just so here; that is, granting, for the present, all his 
assumption; and upon this principle of settling ques- 
tions, there could be no human progress; the world would 
never become any wiser. It would remain ignorant for- 
ever. It would never progress without new light being from 
time to time shed upon its old opinions, and if an opinion 
must always be held because it has once been held. 

But let that pass. He says he must call on Cervantes 
to write the history of the Don Quixotism of Universalism. 
I think he is quite sufficient of himself for this task. Let 
him to the work! 

What has the sentiment of the whole world as to the 
existence of God, to do with this discussion? I have not 
denied his Existence and Character. I acknowledge him 
as the Creator and Savior of the Human Race. The 
whole universe, the earth, the stars, our very bodies, and 
all our senses and mental faculties proclaim the fact abroad. 
Does he mean to represent Universalists as denying 
or disputing it? If he gives me the appearance of 
denying it by arguing for it as if arguing against me, 
I say it is not so. I believe in the existence of one 
God, the Creator and Savior of all men. To intimate 
that we do not, is a mere ruse on the part of Mr. Waller. 



22 



DEBATE ON 



But he thinks I am afraid to sustain what I believe. He 
says he wants to make me ashamed of my real sentiments 
for life, etc. My friend will find me ready to sustain the 
proposition now in discussion; and that is all I intend, or 
am under obligations to sustain, at the present time. I do 
not choose to discuss now, even if able, all the subjects 
in theology. My friend may have the victory all to him- 
self, upon other points. The audience will judge whether 
I advance what 1 cannot or will not sustain. All that he 
said about monkish errors and popular translations of the 
Bible has nothing to do with the subject in hand. 

What is the proposition which I have undertaken to 
defend? " The ultimate holiness and salvation of all men]'' 
and not any minor points. I am not to be drawn from the 
point in this way, by the introduction of other matters. 
It is absurd to talk of my being ashamed to defend what 
I believe. I trust this will be understood. 

Who has expressed any doubt whether we had eyes, 
or hands, or bodies, etc.; or about the existence of the 
earth, and the heavenly bodies'? Not I. Why, then, 
introduce into this discussion mere nonsense for the pur- 
pose of upsetting it? These arguments do not bear upon 
the subject in hand; and there is no need to introduce 
them. 

The declaration was not distinctly made, but an impres- 
sion was attempted to be produced, (and I notice it merely 
to deny the statement now,) that from the time of the 
Apostles down to the year 1818, no advocate was ever 
found of the doctrine of no future punishment. 

Mr. Waller rose to explain. 1 said that no man was 
ever found prior to Mr. Ballou, who admitted the exist- 
ence of God and the divinity of the Bible, and who at the 
same time denied the doctrine of future rewards and 
punishments. 

Mr. Pingree. There was a book written (I have it 
not with me,) nearly two hundred years ago, by a man 
who admitted the existence of God and the divinity of the 
Bible, who advocated the sentiment of no future punishment. 
If necessary, I will produce it. But what has the doctrine 
of no future punishment to do with the proposition? That 
question is not now before us. A man might be punished 
in the next world for thousands and tens of thousands of 
years, and yet it would have nothing to do with this dis- 
cussion. That is not the question, whether there be no 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



25 



future punishment; but whether all men will ultimately be 
holy and happy. 

We come now to the first argument derived from the 
nature and character of God, and his relationship to man. 
Mr. Waller attempts to set aside the correctness of the 
opinion, that the nature and character of God must be 
brought to bear upon the interpretation of his written Word, 
by ascribing a sentiment to me which I do not hold, viz. 
that the Bible must first be understood theologically, before 
we can interpret it philologically. I expressly said we 
must learn the nature and character of God and his 
relations to man from the plain language of the Bible, 
and then bring that to bear upon the teachings of the 
Bible. To what parts of the Bible shall we then apply it? 
Evidently, to ambiguous passages. There is no dispute 
about Ernesti: I subscribe to all he has read from him. 
I only say we must apply it to places where the language 
is ambiguous. 

Now, if we should understand the disposition of a 
father to his children, who we were told was a kind and 
tender father, we should say it was not probable that he 
would torture his child as long as he lived, and when 
about to die, should exert his power to make him live again, 
and so continue to revive and torture him over and over 
and over again, as long as it was possible to make him 
live. Or suppose we were told that a father had made 
such a declaration of his intention towards his child who 
had offended him; would it not be proper to look at the 
disposition of the parent, his character, (if the language 
was ambiguous, I mean,) in reference to the true interpre- 
tation of the language expressing his purpose? This 
would not be violating the laws of language, but simply 
bringing the author's character to bear upon his own 
language where it was ambiguous. In this way we endea- 
vor to find out the true meaning of the passages relating 
to " Hell" "Damnation," or "Everlasting punishment" 
which you must admit are equivocal. I shall not discuss 
these passages now. But when such passages are ambigu- 
ous, how shall we always find out their meaning, except 
by finding out the character of God who has revealed the 
truth in those words of Scripture? I pass that then for 
the present. 

My friend, Mr. Waller, says he subscribes to the char- 



n 



DEBATE ON 



acter and nature of God, and his relationship to man, as I 
have described them. That is therefore admitted. But 
how can he deny the conclusions from it? God is the 
Creator and Father of men, and his nature is Love. He 
is good to the evil and unthankful, even in punishing them. 
He is the same and unchangeable in purpose, now and 
forever. Does it not follow from this, that all men will be 
ultimately holy and saved, seeing that love worketh no ill? 
That his purpose must be that they shall be finally happy? 
I ask you where is the display of goodness in originating 
an order of things by which the great mass of his crea- 
tures must be ultimately and forever wicked and misera- 
ble? In putting man into a condition where he cannot 
repent or reform; where he will not be allowed to reform; 
where he may cry for mercy to all eternity, and have no 
mercy ; where God compels him to sin to all eternity ? Is 
there any goodness, or kindness, or mercy in that?-! 

But according to my friend, Universalism gives a contra- 
ry character of God, — and he quotes Rogers, Whittemore 
Ballou, and Everett. I have heard that before : that there 
is no goodness, no mercy in God, because we ascribe to 
him such a character as the Bible teaches, viz. that he will 
always certainly punish the sinner. What! is it not so? Is 
not that the Word of God? Is it not said that he will " by 
no means clear the guilty?" that " he will render to every 
man according to his works V that " though hand join in 
hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished?" Does my 
friend say there is no mercy in that decree of God? They 
are his. words, and they must stand; and if our friend charges 
a want of mercy on any one, he charges it on God, and not 
on us. 

But he thinks it a dreadful thing that God should inevi- 
tably punish the wicked — that there should be a certain 
retribution here or hereafter; there is no mercy there; no, 
even though he punishes to reform, and with a purpose to 
make men ultimately holy and happy! But there is good- 
ness in this— -rthis is the height of benevolence — that he 
should take his creatures and consign their souls to utter 
perdition, where they must writhe in agony to all eternity, 
and scream with devils and demons damned forever ! ! This, 
to my friend, is pure benevolence! To punish them for 
their benejit is cruel; but to. take them and damn them 
without mercy or hope, not for their benefit, but from 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



25 



revenge and vindictively, for no good object; that is bene- 
volent, and kind, and merciful; is it?-! 

Take the idea that the doctrine of endless damnation is 
true, and connect it with that declaration that God will 
"by no means clear the guilty;" and this, that "though 
hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished;" 
and take the idea that this punishment applies to a future 
life, and to all eternity; and then take the passages, "for 
all have gone astray," " the world lieth in wickedness,*' 
and what follows? Why, universal damnation, to all 
eternity, unless you deny the Divine affirmation, that God 
will "by no means clear the guilty." 

We do not deny " the forgiveness of sins." We deny 
the forgiveness of deserved punishment. John says, 
" Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the 
world;" not the deserved punishment. That is what we 
hold : the forgiveness of sin. 

Another thought in reference to this idea of cruelty. 
The common doctrine of the church whose sentiments 
Mr. Waller represents, is that Jesus Christ suffered the 
punishment which men ought to have endured for their 
transgressions. There are some here, (I do not know 
whether my friend is an Arminian or a Calvinist; but 
there are both here,) who hold that Jesus Christ suffered 
as the substitute for all those who deserved to suffer end- 
less damnation for their sins. Here we have Jesus Christ 
suffering as a substitute, in the stead of sinners, all the 
punishment that was justly due to each sin of every sin- 
ner, past, present, and to come, in his own person. (And 
yet, all were then not saved!) So, then, here is a double 
vengeance taken — a double damnation inflicted! In the 
first place, it is all inflicted to its full extent upon Jesus 
Christ as the substitute for men, and then God punishes 
those very men themselves eternally! It is as if a court 
of justice should condemn a man to death for crime, and 
a substitute should offer himself to die in his stead; and 
the court should hang the substitute, and then turn 
round and hang the criminal tool! That is a perfect 
illustration of the doctrine ! 

I have now noticed all that it was necessary for me to 
notice in the last speech of my friend. My argument 
from the nature and character of God, and his relationship 
to man, as bearing upon the interpretation of the general 



£6 



DEBATE ON 



purposes of God to man, revealed in Scripture, has not 
been removed. I have noticed what he has said, and shall 
wait for more from him. 

I now advance another argument — my second argument 
— from the plain language of the Bible. I presented my 
first argument rather as an inference. I do not propose 
that this shall be so. I appeal now, for the present ar- 
gument, to the Apostle Paul, in the 8th chapter of his Epis- 
tle to the Romans, verses 18, 19, 20 and 21. I will read 
the whole pa-jsage. " For I reckon that the sufferings of 
tikis present time are not worthy to be compared with the 
glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest 
expectation of the creature;" [I shall maintain that the 
word "creature" here means the whole human creation; 
when I am driven from that position, I will yield the pas- 
sage; but not till then. 1 assert that the word "crea- 
tion" does not mean the brute beasts, as John Wesley said; 
that it does not mean the glorified saints, as some say; 
nor the angels of God in heaven, as another has said, nor 
the fallen angels — but human creatures, the whole human 
creation] — "for the earnest expectation of the creature 
— the creation — waiteth for the manifestation of the 
sonsof God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, 
not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected 
the same in hope/' Does not the Apostle apply the word 
"creature" to man in general? To what else can it 
apply? 1 will read on; "Because the creature itself also 
[1 would read it 4 creation itself;' that being the true 
meaning;] shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- 
tion into the glorious liberty of the children of God." 

I have not introduced, as you will see, a passage con- 
taining the word "saved-" because that word might have 
an ambiguous signification. There are various salvations 
spoken of in Scripture. It saves the trouble of disputing, 
to select an expression which is not ambiguous. Of such 
a character is the expression here : " The creature [crea- 
tion] shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption 
into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. For we 
know that the whole creation [the same word ijs here trans- 
lated "creation," which was before translated "creature;" 
this will be admitted;] groaneth and travaileth together in 
pain until now; and not only they, but ourselves also, 
which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves 



UN I VEESALI SM. 



27 



groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, 
the redemption of our body." 

I shall enter into no details of the argument now; nor 
anticipate the views of Mr. Waller. If 1 followed his ex- 
ample, I should bring books of orthodox writers of dis- 
tinction, and show that one said the " creation'" meant 
the brutes; another, the angels in heaven; another, that 
it meant the human body only; another, the saints now in 
the body, etc. 1 might, according to his example in the 
case of Universalists, take what anybody and everybody 
has said, who passes by the name of orthodox, and com- 
bat that. Should 1 do this? No: nor should he take all 
the writings of Universalists into this discussion, and con- 
trovert them. It is not his duty, nor mine. I shall sim- 
ply present the passages, with only a few brief remarks, 
for him to comment upon; and shall then demonstrate- 
that they teach the doctrine of universal salvation. 

I may as well introduce another passage to the same 
point, now, to save time. It is the 14th and 15th verses of 
the second chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews: 
" Forasmuch then as the children, [i. e. human beings in 
general,] are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself 
likewise [i. e. Jesus Christ,] took part of the same; that 
through death he might destroy him that had the power 
of death, that is, the devil;" [ I do not mean now to dis- 
cuss the existence of a personal devil; grant all that is 
believed about him, for the present ;] and what else? 
" and deliver them, who through fear of death, [mark! 
the passage in Romans 8th says that the whole creation 
" shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption," etc. 
This passage is to the same point;] were all their lifetime 
subject to bondage." 

Whether this embraces more or less of the human race; 
whether the elect only, or the wicked; all those who 
"were made subject to vanity," are to be "delivered from 
the bondage of corruption;" and so also those who were 
" all their life subject to bondage." You can settle it 
in your minds whether this embraces all men, or not. It 
is certain, that if any are excepted, they are those who were 
not " made subject to vanity," and those who have not 
"been subject to bondage through fear of death." Where 
are such? Where are those who are not included in this 
promise of deliverance? If you limit the passage, I 



^3 



DEBATE ON 



should like to have it explained; who are they that are 
not included? and let us have them brought forward. I 
will then give up the point ; that is to say, if the excep- 
tion is established. 

I invite his especial and careful attention to these pas- 
sages, particularly the one in Romans 8th. I admit can- 
didly, that it is one, (though not the only one,) of the 
main pillars of the doctrine of universal salvation. I 
confess that I rest much of my hope on that one passage. 
I shall not leave it till it is taken out of my hands. But 
I have no fears of its being removed. 

I will make one remark in conclusion by way of warn- 
ing, in reference to either Mr. Waller or myself. Either 
of us may present proof texts that do not sustain our posi- 
tions. We may be in error on some particular passage. 
Possibly this may be shown. Now though this may be 
shown in one passage comingeither from him or me, it does 
not follow that the system we support falls with that one 
passage. For my own part, though I do not intend to 
introduce passages which will not stand the test ot dis- 
cussion, I feel disposed, should 1 be shown to be in error, 
to acknowledge it. But till that is done, I shall hold on 
to them, and stand by them, and present them as pillars of 
the system which I advocate on the present occasion. 

[mr. waller's second reply.] 
I will, at the outset, dispose of what Mr. Pingree is 
pleased to term his second argument, based upon Romans 
viii. 18 — 23. And I cannot refrain expressing my admi- 
ration at his singular prudence! After I have taken my 
position on the passage, then he will show what it means!! 
Most adroit disputant, truly! He quotes a passage of 
Scripture as the basis of his second argument, but before 
showing how it at all answers his purposes, waits to hear 
my exposition of it! Am I to forge his thunder bolts! 
And, verily, I thought from his former speech that he 
loould lead, and I must follow. 

And his interpretation of the passage, too, as far as he 
ventured to interpret, was no despicable exhibition of 
Palstaff's " better part of valor." The " whole creation," 
you will see in the sequel of his course, will mean just 
that part of creation which suits his purposes! He has 
already told you, that it does not mean angels or brutes, or 
inanimate things. But he has not proved that it must stop 



\ 



UNI VERSALI SM. 29 

there. When he shows how many parts of the whole 
creation are to be rejected to suit the dire necessities of 
his cause, then, perhaps, I will want him to reject some 
other parts. But I will wait patiently his advances on this 
point. I am not wont to manufacture weapons for my 
opponents. 

He professes to be at a loss to determine with whom I 
am debating; perhaps the sequel will dissipate his embar- 
rassment. Probably he will, before we are done, learn 
that I war with his whole system. I protest against and 
hope to expose all of it, if the time allotted will be suffi- 
cient. I think it all necessarily included in the proposi- 
tion under discussion. He says he did not come here to 
defend the ground of his brethren. This resolution is 
admirably adapted to the emergency of his affairs — it 
relieves him from attempting what he nor any one else 
can perform. He also prudently resolves not to say 
whether the punishment for sin is in this life or in that 
of the future. It suits him best to strut in the plumage 
of the Restorationists, as occasion may require. Like 
the bat in the fable, he wants to be beast or bird, accord- 
ing as the battle waxes. If occasion requires, he wants to 
sail in mid air with the Restorationists; and when this 
becomes dangerous he can fold up his wings, and creep 
on the earth with the Universalists! Is this the far-famed 
knight before whose prowess, according to the Universa- 
lists hereabouts, my organ of courage disappeared last 
fall? But he must take grounds. He must place himself 
either with the Universalists or the Restorationists. I am 
ready to demolish either system. If he admits that the 
wicked are in hell for one hour, I will keep them there 
forever. If he puts them in the prison of perdition, I will 
fasten the gates with the Bible. 

The magnanimity of Mr. Pingree, too, seemed to be 
exercised altogether for his own benefit! He thought it 
very illiberal in me to say anything on the Universalists' 
view of punishment in contradistinction to that of the Re- 
storationists; but then it was all the very pink of liberality 
in him to descant on vicarious atonement, Calvinism, Ar- 
minianism, etc., etc.! And while he denied my right to 
refer to his sentiments on the punishment of sinners, he 
did not hesitate to declare and to comment upon mine! 
He represents me as contending for the endless punishment 



30 



DEBATE ON 



of the wicked; when, from ought that I had said, he did not 
know but I denied their punishment, and taught their 
annihilation! By this unwillingness to do unto others as 
he would they should do unto him, and his condemning in 
me what he allows in himself, I apprehend he feels that 
he is hard pressed. 

But language would fail to do justice to the modesty of 
Universalism, as presented by Mr. Pingree in his last 
speech. So far from denying, he justified the claim set 
up by his system, that all the world were enveloped 
in a cloud of ignorance on the subject of a future state, 
until modern Universalism arose to dissipate the mists! 
He went further. He compared himself and his coad- 
jutors to the prophet Elijah, in his controversy with the 
priests of Baal! Well, when he brings down fire from 
heaven, like that venerable seer, I will bow to his be- 
hests; but not until then can I admit the comparison. — 
But even Elijah was not of suitable stature to measure 
his lofty pretensions! But he was like the son of God, 
who spake as never man spake; and because Messiah 
found none of the people to help him, but was rejected 
by his own nation, therefore Universalism from the 
mouth of Mr. Ballou or Mr. Pingree, might be as true as 
the Gospel from the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth! If he 
did not mean this, by his allusion to Jesus Christ, what 
could he mean? But I cannot receive the mission of 
'■'Father Ballou, 1 ' to use the filial designation of my oppo- 
nent, until, like our Savior, he confirms it by miracle. 
Let him raise the dead, cleanse the leper, heal the sick, 
cast out devils, open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the 
ears of the deaf. Then, but not till then, can I see how 
he at all resembles the blessed Savior in his mission, or 
deserves similar credit. 

You were told, that had I lived in the days of the Re- 
formation, I would have been found on the side of Rome, 
etc. My friend has condescended a little — " fallen some- 
what from his high estate" — when he compares himself 
to Luther, the giant of the Reformation, after the mag- 
nificent comparison of himself to Elijah, and the Son of 
God! But he will pardon me if 1 even dispute his claims 
to equality with the reformer of Wirtemberg. Luther 
contended for the common-sense interpretation of the 
Bible. He waged no war against the reason and enlight- 
ened judgments of men. These he fostered, and warred 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



31 



to rescue them from the vassalage of superstition and 
spiritual despotism. No doctrine of the Bible that had 
received the unanimous sanction of the mass of enlight- 
ened minds since the days of the Apostles, was ever op- 
posed by Luther. The cases, then, are not parallel. 
Luther was a very different individual from Mr. Ballou, 
or Mr. Pingree! As to the Copernican system, and the 
discoveries of Harvey, when he demonstrates his theory 
by actual experiment; when he brings one from " that 
bourne from which no traveler has returned," to attest by 
actual obseration the truth of his doctrine, then may he 
place his on an equality with the discoveries of Harvey. 
Whenever, by mathematical demonstration, he makes his 
system good, then it may claim to rank with the Coper- 
nican. But he has done none of these things. I cannot 
then consent to place Mr. Ballou or Mr. Pingree along- 
side of Elijah, Jesus Christ, Luther, Copernicus, Harvey, 
or any other great instructer and reformer of mankind. 

I introduced Atheism and the Cartesian philosophy for 
the avowed purpose of showing that there were no opin- 
ions, however absurd, and no systems however chimeri- 
cal and preposterous, but may have their advocates, and 
even their martyrs. To this end, and as an apology for 
Universalism, I referred to these monstrous abortions of 
misguided minds. 

To vindicate himself from the charge that the Univer- 
salist's 'God never forgives; he alleges that my system 
makes him unkind and inhumane; and that even granting 
my position, still his system represents his character in a 
more amiable light than mine. I wholly deny those state- 
ments. My system blends, in glorious harmony, the 
mercy and justice of the Almighty. It represents him as 
upholding a law that is "holy, just, and good," while he 
extends pardon, for the sake of his Son, to the violaters of 
it, who seek his face sorrowing. But 1 intend to say 
more on this, in its appropriate place. Suffice it now to 
say, that I deem it more merciful for God to forgive some- 
times, than never to forgive under any circumstances. 
But oh, says my friend, he does forgive! Aye, he for- 
gives after the sinner has suffered a full and adequate 
punishment for his sins! Singular forgiveness! and a 
most singular jurisprudence that sanctions it! An individ- 
ual owes another one thousand dollars, and the creditor 



32 



DEBATE ON 



forgives the debt after it is all paid ! And this is what is 
taught us in that petition of the Lord's Prayer, " Forgive 
us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;" meaning that, 
as we exact the uttermost farthing of our debtors, therefore 
our Heavenly Father will please, in mercy and benevo- 
lence, to exact the uttermost farthing of us!! What 
would be said of the clemency of a father who should 
punish, to its fullest extent, the disobedience of his son, 
and then sa) r , he had forgiven his transgression? ! A crime 
is committed against the State, and the criminal suffers a 
full and adequate punishment for it; and this, in the vo- 
cabulary of Universalism, is denominated forgiveness ! 
Such language is not of earth. No nation, or kindred, or 
people, ever used such speech! I defy such a meaning 
lor the term forgiveness to be produced from any diction- 
ary extant. But he says, " God does not forgive the sin- 
ner, but the sinV Well, let us see how this will work. 
The Savior makes intercession in behalf of a repenting 
sinner, and God, in consequence, punishes the sinner to 
the full extent of his sins, and then forgives his sins! Is 
there another system of jurisprudence in the universe 
like this? But my friend discourses about the forgiveness 
of the sin and the punishment of the transgression ! 1 
have heard of metaphysical scissors, capacitated to 

Sever and divide 
" A hair 'twixt south and southwest side." 

And, verily, he must be using these. W T hat is sin? 
The Bible defines it to be, " transgression of law;" one 
tells us, that " where there is no law there is no trans- 
gression." And yet Mr. Pingree's system punishes every 
transgression, and at the same time forgives every sin!? 
This is marvelously profound! It is beyond my depth. 
I shall await further developments. I cannot plunge fur- 
ther into such a metaphysical abyss! I beseech you, how- 
ever, to bear in mind, that he contends that every trans- 
gressor, or sinner, receives a full and adequate punish- 
ment. I shall have use for this before our discussion 
terminates. 

He told you, that I had not answered his first argument, 
and that all I said in reply, had no application to the ques- 
tion. I must appeal from his decision, to you. I suspect 
he is not the most disinterested judge in the world. I 



UNIVERSAL! SM. 



33 



submit the matter to your intelligent and impartial deci^ 
sion. I fear I should be most signally discomfitted, if the 
decision of this controversy were left to his judgment. 
We are so prone to over-estimate the strength of our rea- 
soning. In the excitement of debate, pigmy arguments, 
in the estimation of him that advances them, Swell out to 
giant proportions. Some men, when they set out to 
achieve some notable exploit, are certain to be successful 
in their own imagination; just so Cervantes records of 
his hero who went out to wage war upon giants, that once 
upon a time he demolished a showman's puppets, believ- 
ing they were veritable giants! It is not always safe, 
then, to conclude that every one esteems our arguments 
as formidable as we do ourselves. It is not every one 
who is blest with the gift of "seeing ourselves as others 
see us." I will not therefore, in imitation of his example, 
venture an opinion upon the strength of my answer to his 
first argument. I will submit the matter, with all defer- 
ence, to be judged of by the audience. 

Having thus paid all the attention to his arguments, 
which, in my humble estimation, they deserve, I shall 
proceed to present a few facts for your consideration; 
for I perceive, that if I go no faster than he leads, we 
shall get very slowly over the ground; and I am not dis- 
posed to waste time. The following are facts : 

1. It is a fact, that the Apostolic Fathers all believed 
that Jesus and his Apostles taught a state of future retri- 
bution — that the righteous should be happy, and the 
wicked should be miserable, after death. These men 
lived in and near the apostolic age* They were mostly 
Greeks, to whom the inspired language of the New Tes- 
tament was vernacular* Were they more likely than 
Hosea Ballou to mistake this matter? 

2. It is a fact, that the whole church, immediately suc- 
ceeding the apostolic age, held and taught, as the doctrine 
of Jesus and his Apostles, that the righteous would be 
saved, and the wicked be eternally damned, in the world 
to come. I say the whole church of the second century. 
Not a discordant voice was heard. 

3. It is a fact, that all the Christian Fathers affirmed 
that this doctrine was taught in the Scriptures. Some of 
the more visionary of them, held that the punishment was 
not eternal; as Origen, of the third century, and perhaps 



34 



DEBATE ON 



Gregory Nazianzen ; but they did not profess to derive 
any support for this opinion from the Bible, but from their 
own crude philosophical speculations. These two Fathers 
were the most speculative and visionary of all the writers 
of antiquity. Origen laid it down as a principle of inter- 
pretation, that the letter of the Bible was never to be fol- 
lowed, but the spirit. " The letter killeth,'' said he, " but 
the spirit maketh alive." He is the prince of spiritual- 
izers. I will give you a specimen of his exposition. The 
Bible tells us that Pharoah's daughter found the infant 
Moses in an ark of bull-rushes in the river, and took him 
out, and adopted him as her son. That, says Origen, is 
the letter, and must be rejected. The spiritual or true 
sens® is, that Pharoah is the devil; his daughter, the 
church; Moses is -Jesus Christ; and his being taken out 
of the water, the baptism of the Savior!! The peculiar 
excellency of this mode of interpretation may be seen, by 
its making the devil the father of the church! This was 
his manner of treating God's word. He, moreover, tried 
to conform it as much as possible to the dreamy theories 
of the heathen philosophy, to which he was ardently at- 
tached. His notions of the wicked in a future state were, 
that after suffering a long series of years, they would be 
admitted to a state of probation again, where, if they 
sinned, they were again to be punished. This he derived 
from the heathen philosophers, as he did all his doctrine in 
relation. to the soul ; and he urged that the soul, for transgres- 
sion in its pre-existent state, was doomed to inhabit a mortal 
body; and that for sins in this body, it would, unless saved 
by repentance, etc. be sent to hell, there to be punished for 
a long series of years, as already mentioned. For these 
visionary notions, he pretended no support from the Scrip- 
tures, nor did he ever intimate that Jesus and his Apostles 
taught them. On the contrary, he testifies, as I will 
show in due time, that the Savior and his Apostles taught 
the eternal punishment of the wicked. Gregory Nazian- 
zen was a disciple of Origen's. But, it is sufficient for the 
present, that Origen tells us that the whole church of his 
day, held that the punishment of the wicked was eternal. 

4. It is a f ct, that all Christian Greeks, in whose lan- 
guage the New Testament was written by the Evangelists 
and Apostles, and who of course ought to know the mean- 
ing of the words employed in the Scriptures relative to 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



35, 



the doctrine in controversy, have ever believed, since the 
first implantation of Christianity among them, that Jesus 
and his Apostles taught the eternal happiness of the right- 
eous, and the eternal misery of the wicked, in a future 
state. Now, so far as the meaning of the words in ques- 
tion are concerned, this settles the controversy; and the 
whole of it turns upon the true meaning of these words.. 
Now, who can understand the Greek language, if the 
Greeks did not? Shall Mr. Pingree or myself profess to 
know more of it, than those who spoke and wrote it as 
their mother tongue I What if a German, fresh from 
Germany, should come here, and because he had studied 
English for a session or two in his own country, and could 
translate a dozen English books into German, should as- 
sume to know more of the English language, than all the 
men in England or America?, would we not all spurn him 
as a most sublimated specimen of self-conceit? The fact, 
then, that the Greeks, from the day that Paul and Silas 
first preached the Gospel to them, down to the present 
time, have always understood that the Scriptures, in their 
tongue, taught a state of future retribution, and that the 
wicked should be eternally punished, settles the import of 
the words in debate, beyond the power of appeal. For 
to whom can we go, if the Greeks themselves do not un- 
derstand their own language? 

5. It is a fact, that all the translators of the Scrip- 
tures, into all the languages into which they have been 
made, and of which we have any information, have with- 
out an exception, so far as I have been able to learn, so 
translated them as to teach the everlasting happiness of 
the righteous, and the eternal punishment of the wicked. 
I have something upwards of a dozen different translations 
with me — they are free for the inspection of Mr. Pingree 
—they are all so translated. They use the strongest 
words in their respective languages to convey the idea of 
eternity. The whole host of learned and distinguished 
men, ancient and modern, who, under the providence of 
God, have given the Word of life to their fellow men by 
means of translations, agree in thus interpreting the lan- 
guage of Christ and his Apostles; at least, this is true so 
far as my information extends, and I have taken great 
pains to inform myself. 

6. It is a fact, that all the most distinguished com- 



36 DEBATE ON 

mentators, as Gill, Scott, Henry, Pool, Guyse, Calvin, 
Clarke, Campbell, Luther, Locke, Lowth, Lightfoot, Wes- 
ley, Wolfius, Waple, Whitby, Burkett, Beza, Brown, 
Bloomfield, Barnes, By field, Brightman, Bengel, Dod- 
dridge, Davenport, Danbury, Atkinson, Ainsworth, Adams, 
Albertus, Fuller, Ferguson, Hammond, Hardy, Jermyn, 
Jones, Johnson, Goodwin, Good, Geier, McKnight, Mede, 
Newton, Stuart, Ripley, Owens, Home, Chalmers, and a 
host of others, too tedious to mention, who have written 
commentaries upon the whole or a part of the Bible — in a 
word, all critics and commentators of any note, are unani- 
mously of opinion that the Scriptures teach a state of 
future rewards and punishments; and the overwhelming 
majority of them teach that these estates are eternal. 

7. It is a fact, that every man of the very few ma- 
king pretensions to scholarship who deny the eternal pun- 
ishment of the wicked, concede that the doctrine, in the 
Scriptures, is taught in the same terms and in the same 
connections as those which teach the eternal happiness of 
the righteous. 

8. It is a fact, that infidels have charged the Bible with 
inculcating this sentiment, and Christians, in answer, have 
never been wont to deny the charge ; but they admit and 
justify the doctrine. This was the course of Origen with 
Celsus. And I refer to this case, to show that Origen did 
not profess to get his Restorationism from the teachings 
of Jesus and his Apostles. I will quote Leland's account 
of the matter: 

"Celsus, in a passage cited before, pretends that the 
doctrine of future punishments was equally taught among 
the Pagans as among the Christians, especially by those 
who were the interpreters of the sacred rites and the mys- 
tagogues, who initiated persons into the mysteries, or pre- 
sided in them. But then, in what follows, he supposes, 
that though both the mystagogues and the Christians 
taught future punishments, yet they differed in their 
accounts of them; and the question was, which of their 
accounts was the truest. Origen, in his reflections on this 
passage, observes, that it is reasonable to think that they 
had truth on their side, whose doctrine on this head had 
such an influence on their hearers, that they lived as if 
they were persuaded of the truth of it: that the Jews and 
Christians are mightily affected with the persuasion they 



UNIVERSALIS!*!. 



37 



have of the future rewards of good men, and punishment, 
of the wicked. But, says he, 'let Celsus, or any other 
man that pleases, show any persons who hath been 
wrought upon by the terrors of the eternal punishments, 
as represented by the mystagogues;' where he intimates 
that the mysteries had very little effect, and made small 
impressions on the minds of men." Leland on Revelation, 
vol. 2, p. 390. 

The work of Celsus was written against the doctrine 
and practice of the Christians, as inculcated in the New 
Testament. He was a Greek, as well as Origen. He 
alleges that the Scriptures teach eternal punishment, and 
insists that in that they are no better than the heathen 
mysteries. Origen, in reply, admits the Scriptures teach 
the doctrine, and shows that as taught there it has a more * 
pre-eminent influence on men's minds than as taught in 
the mysteries. Would Origen have made this admission 
if it was susceptible of a denial? If the language of the 
New Testament admitted of a different interpretation, 
who more competent to show it? And if disposition was 
requisite to the attempt, being a Hestorationist, who likely 
to be more willing? 

9. It is a fact, that of all Christians — martyrs and 
confessors, learned and unlearned, orthodox and hetrodox, 
churchmen and schismatics — of all who ever professed the 
name of Jesus Christ, not one is known, until the nine- 
teenth century, to have disputed that the Bible taught the 
reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked, 
in the world to come. The gentleman told us, that the 
Universalists have a book written some two or three cen- 
turies ago, denying future punishment, and he has prom- 
ised to produce it, if he can. Will his friends remember 
this, and help him to find it? 

10. It is & fact, that, since the final amen was affixed 
to the Word of God, no one is known to have disputed 
future retribution, but visionary pagan philosophers, hea- 
thens of the worst sort, atheists, and some infidels, until 
the commencement of the career of the remarkable Hosea 
Ballou! 

11. It is a fact, that the large and overwhelming 
mass of all the most pious and learned, the most self-de- 
nying disciples and most laborious students of the Bible, 
now, as in all ages of the church, believe that the Scrip- 
tures teach the eternal punishment of the enemies of God. 



38 



DEBATE ON 



12. It is a fact, that the large and overwhelming 
mass of professed Christians, now, and ever since the 
apostolic age, whatever may be now, or may have been 
formerly their differences of opinion touching other 
points, are and have been perfectly united on the senti- 
ment that the righteous will be eternally happy, and the 
wicked eternally miserable. 

I have but few comments to make. Here are twelve 
facts, bearing upon the history of this question. 1 wish 
you to take them home with you and ponder them well. 
They will not be disputed; or if they should be, I am am- 
ply provided with the proofs. I do not claim them as 
infallible proofs of the truth of my position, nor of the 
falsity of that of my opponent. Only God can furnish 
such proofs. But I do claim them to be the strongest 
proofs possible 'for the human mind to furnish in favor of 
future eternal punishment. My friend may say it is not 
Scriptural evidence, and in that way attempt to escape the 
force of these facts. It is his only way. But how is it 
possible for men to understand the Scriptures, if such 
means as these be discarded? Only an infallible church 
can understand them. The human mind is wholly inade- 
quate to the task. Can the human mind do more than I 
have shown it has done on this subject? And if it is mis- 
taken, we must forever abandon its guidance. Look at it 
again. All men, for seventeen centuries, with the whole 
subject before them, arrive at the same conclusion, that 
there is a future state of rewards and punishments; and no 
one disputes it until Hosea Ballou. His advent is an 
epoch. He, in our own day and generation, proclaims the 
whole Christian world wrong, and assumes to be a bright, 
peculiar star in the moral heavens, destined to outshine 
and eclipse all the lesser lights of learning, philosophy, 
piety and criticism, which have shed on man their feeble 
rays for upwards of seventeen centuries! And who is 
this Hosea Ballou? Has he proved his title to this assump- 
tion by an exhibition of such learning, and talents, and 
piety, as were never witnessed before? If men can inter- 
pret the Bible at all, why must we believe that he only has 
interpreted it aright? Must we believe that all the Chris- 
tian world, of every sect and denomination, in all ages 
and all countries of the Christian religion, with all the 
aids that learning, application, and mental vigor could 
afford, were unanimously wrong in opinion and belief on 



UNIVERS ALI SM. 



39 



this all-absorbing point, until this individual arose to set 
them right? 

Universalism may be right! Aye, it may be right, when 
there is no such thing as wrong! If true, it would be 
unique — the most wonderful prodigy the world ever saw! 
It would be a mental phenomenon that has never had its 
parallel. The gentleman may claim to know more than 
all others. It is not impossible for one man, on a particu- 
lar subject or subjects, to know more than those who have 
not had those subjects called to their especial consideration. 
A lawyer or a doctor may be more learned in hisprofession 
than all persons who have not made law and medicine their 
studies. But suppose there was in the law an important 
principle, well settled by the voice of the profession for 
ages; suppose it to be a principle frequently applied to 
important cases of adjudication; and yet that no one, how- 
ever deeply interested, had ever presumed to question it; 
and suppose that all the learned jurists and writers whose 
opinions are recorded had agreed unanimously in their 
construction of it; and that with them had concurred all 
who had been in any way interested or informed on the 
subject. And then suppose a solitary individual should 
arise, and he far from being the most learned in his pro- 
fession, and announce for the first time, that all were 
wrong, and that he alone understood the true import and 
meaning of that principle of law!— think you he could 
proselyte many of that profession to his opinion? Would 
they not be apt to inquire how it happened that his one 
head should contain more knowledge of law than the 
heads of all the profession that had preceded him? Doubt- 
less they would. Let us make the same demand of the 
Universalists. Let them make good their information on 
this point, as superior to the united wisdom of Christendom 
in all past time. Without this, we cannot bow to their 
opinions. 

If this question had always been esteemed one of but 
little consequence, it might not have received that atten- 
tion it has from the religious world ; and in that case, I 
might be willing to grant all that is claimed for the inven- 
tor and patentee of Universalism. But it is a question of 
most thrilling interest. The eternal destiny of the soul 
is a subject of immense magnitude, forcing itself upon the 
consideration of every mind, and filling it with anxious 



40 



DEBATE ON 



solicitude. It could not have been overlooked by men. 
That a doctrine shouid be plainly recorded in the Bible, 
so important and so interesting to man, as that of Univer- 
salism, viz: There is no punishment to the sinner after 

DEATH — -that ALL MEN SHALL BE HOLY AND HAPPY IN A FU- 
TURE state, and yet that it should escape the most vigilant 
research so long, is most incomprehensible. Aye, that 
this doctrine should be spread out on the pages of the 
Bible, as they say it is, and as from its importance it ought 
to be, in lines as distinct and legible as if written in sun- 
beams on heaven's blue archway, and yet that all eyes, for 
seventeen centuries, should be anxiously turned towards 
it, without one being able to perceive it, until the more 
than eagle optics of Hosea Ballou were providentially 
turned in that direction — -to ask us to believe all this, is de- 
manding as much faith as would remove and cast a syca- 
mine tree into the depths of ocean! Yet we cannot get along 
with Universalism without subscribing to all this : and it 
presents to my mind an insuperable barrier to its recep- 
tion. If the doctrine be true, it is the most important of 
all others. Time is fast carrying us all to the tomb. 
[Adjourned until 3 o'clock, P. M.] 

Mr. Pingree rose here and requested all those then pres- 
ent to attend and hear his reply at 3 o'clock. It was due 
to the doctrine he advocated, that they should be in pos- 
session of his rejoinder to Mr. Waller. 

[me. pingree's third speech.] 

Respected Friends: — I shall devote my time this after- 
noon, as far as may be necessary, to replying to the last 
speech from Mr. Waller, this forenoon. 

The proof text now to be especially examined, is the 
8th chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, beginning at 
the 18th verse. This embraced my second argument, and 
presented defin'tely the doctrine of universal salvation. 

My first argument, as you may recollect, was drawn 
from the nature of God, and his relations to all men: that 
he is " our Father;" that his nature is love, and that he 
is good to all- kind even to the evil and the unthankful, 
and unchangeably, forever so; and cannot inflict ultimate, 
endless evil on his creatures, whom he loves. 

My second argument was from the eighth chapter of 
Romans ; which Mr. Waller, in his reply, neglected to 



UNIVERSALIS*!. 



41 



notice, because I had not said all that could be said on 
the subject of the word ;< creature." That I had not done 
that to the fullest extent, was no excuse for his not exam- 
ining the passage. But I will read the passage again, and 
again call his attention to it. " For the earnest ex- 
pectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation 
of the sons of God. For the creature was made sub- 
ject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who 
hath subjected the same in hope. Because the crea- 
ture itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of 
corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God " etc. 

1 will read and comment again upon the whole passage, 
in order that no further excuse may remain for Mr. Wal- 
ler's not examining it. I now state what I stated before, 
that the 20th and 21st verses above quoted, are those that 
are relied on by Universal ists as distinctly supporting the 
doctrine of universal salvation. I said that the word 
"creature," in the 20th verse, is the same word in the 
original, as the word translated " creation," in the 22d 
verse; and that it therefore may read, " the whole crea- 
tion shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption," 
etc.; meaning, of course, all the creation here spoken of, 
which " was made subject to vanity;" i. e. the human race. 

Now the inquiry comes from my friend, why does not 
the word " creation" here refer to the brutes, and the an- 
gels, etc., as well as to man? And this being answered, 
he says will present the passage in such a light that he 
can look at it. Let us see therefore if we can answer his 
question, and if there be really any difficulty in the way 
of its proper interpretation. We will take the passage 
and see, in the first place, in what manner it will apply to 
the brute creation. How would it read when thus applied? 
Let us read it so: " For the earnest expectation of the 
{brute) creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons 
of God! For the {brute) creation was made subject to 
vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath sub- 
jected the same (i. e. the brute creation) in hope. [This 
hardly corresponds with our view of brute intellect. Do 
brutes " hope? "] Because the {brute) creation itself shall 
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glo- 
rious liberty of the sons of God." 

What then is to become of the human creation? Where 
can be the spirit of a Father in this? Men are sent 



42 



DEBATE ON 



to the world of wo to suffer the pains of eternal perdition, 
and to writhe forever in the agonies of Hell; but the brutes 
are they to whom the glorious promises of the Gospel 
apply, and who are to be delivered from the bondage of 
corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God! ! 
The passage cannot by any possibility be construed to 
apply to the brute creation. I cannot pretend to say, be- 
cause nothing is revealed upon the question, what is to 
become of brutes hereafter, if there be any hereafter for 
them. But that this passage does not apply to them, is 
very certain; and it cannot be possible that my friend so 
thinks of applying it. 

Again, the inquiry is made, Why does not the passage 
apply to angelic creatures'? Let us again make the pas- 
sage, thus applied, answer for itself : " For the earnest 
expectation of the {angelic) creation waiteth for the man- 
ifestation of the sons of God. For the (angelic) creation 
was made subject to vanity, (!) not willingly, but by rea- 
son of him who hath subjected the same (angelic creation) 
in hope." Is it so? Is this the fact? Is the angelic crea- 
tion made subject to vanity ? Let us read on. "Because 
the (angelic) creation," that love and adore around the 
throne of God, " shall be delivered from the bondage of 
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of 
God ! " *ls that their condition? Do the angels of God 
stand in need of that kind of deliverance? If so, the lan- 
guage may apply to them; otherwise, not. 

But I once heard one say, in speaking of this passage, 
that the word creation applies to the fallen angels. Let 
us see how the passage will read when thus applied: " For 
the earnest expectation of the fallen angelic creation, 
(that is, of the devils, so called,) waiteth for the manifesta- 
tion of the sons of God! For the fallen angels, or devils, 
were made subject to vanity — not willingly, but by reason 
of him who hath subjected the same in hope! For the 
fallen angels, devils, themselves shall be delivered from 
the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the 
sons of God"! According to the last reading, what does 
the theory involve? That a man must believe in the sal- 
vation of devils, but that the human race are doomed to 
eternal perdition! We see, then, on the very face of the 
passage, that it cannot refer to brutes, or angels, or devils. 

Then to what does the word " creature," or creation, 



UNIVERSALISM. 



43 



refer 1 ? There are some who say it refers to the saints. 
The passage is plain in itself, and on its very face; and 
the more we examine it, the more evident it is that it must 
necessarily be explained in only one way. Let us now see 
how the verses read, when applied to the saints: " For 
the earnest expectation of the saints waiteth for the man- 
ifestation of the sons of God. For the saints were made 
subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who 
hath subjected the same in hope." Is this the condition 
of the saints alone? The passage relates to the period 
before they were saints. " For the saints shall be deliv- 
ered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious lib- 
erty of the sons of God." Have not the saints already 
the liberty of the sons of God? Were they made subject 
to vanity, as saints? does it, or can it apply to them exclu- 
sively? It certainly cannot. If it does not apply to 
saints, therefore, to whom does it apply? To men, in gen- 
eral. What can we think it applies to, except the human 
creation; men that have sinned; that were made subject 
to vanity — that are in the bondage of corruption, and who 
hope for a deliverance into the glorious liberty of the sons 
of God? 

Let us look at an example or two where the same word, 
"creature," is used. Colossians i. 15. "Christ the first- 
born of every "creature." Of what " creatures" is Christ 
here spoken of as being the first-born? I presume not 
of angels, or brutes; but of men. Again, " the Gospel 
should be preached unto every creature." What crea- 
tures does this refer to? Brute creatures? ! or angelic 
creatures? Are these the creatures to whom the Gospel 
is preached? No. To whom, then, does the word " crea- 
ture " apply? I press the question. Ans. To human, sin- 
ful men; does it not? The Savior commanded his disci- 
ples to go throughout the world, and " preach the Gospel 
to every creature." What is the meaning of the word 
"creature," here? To whom was the Gospel to be 
preached, but to sinful man? who needed it, and who was to 
be delivered by it? and to whose nature and condition 
alone was it adapted? Mr. Waller tells us he may drive 
me to embrace more in the word, "creature," by my 
interpretation, than would suit my argument; and then that 
it embraces less than the whole human creation. Well, 
let us hear what kind of creatures it can embrace, beyond 



44 



DEBATE ON 



human beings. My reading of the passage is, that it em- 
braces just the whole human race, and no more, and no 
less; because the creation that shall be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the 
sons of God, is the " creation" that was " made subject to 
vanity;" the creation that is in "the bondage of corrup- 
tion," the "creation" that has an "earnest expectation of 
the manifestation of the sons of God," and the creation 
to whom the preaching of the Gospel was exclusively adap- 
ted; — in a word, sinful, human beings. The word cannot 
be made to seem to mean anything else. Then 1 say that 
the passage does not apply to the brute creation, or the 
angelic creation, or the fallen angels or devils, or to the 
glorified saints; but to sinful human beings; and if this 
be the fact, it is conclusive evidence, so far as the plain 
declaration of Scripture can go, in favor of the doctrine 
of final universal salvation. 

I think I have now said enough upon the plain language 
of the passage itself, to entitle my argument to a little of 
the attention of Mr. Waller upon the present occasion. 
We shall anxiously look for his reply. 

I wonder if the audience recollect the proposition? I 
will repeat it: "Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holi- 
ness and salvation of all men?" That is the proposition. 
What was the object of the last speech of Mr. Waller, 
during the morning's discussion? Was it to show from 
Scripture that the proposition was untrue? No; but to 
overthrow the doctrine of universal salvation, by vote — 
by the opinions of men, by the authority of uninspired, 
fallible men. I appeal not to them; my appeal is from 
them, to the sacred Scriptures, to the Word of God. It 
is a strange affair, he says, an unparalleled phenomenon 
in the history of the world, that Universalists should dis- 
cover the doctrine of universal salvation in the Scriptures, 
when so many commentators, and all the learned and pious 
men of the world, for so long a time knew nothing about 
it. His argument is this: that the existing Church believes 
in the endfess punishment of all the wicked; therefore it 
must be true. 

Mr. Waller professes to be a Protestant. I ask, is he 
Protestant in that? If he means to argue this question in 
that manner, I say to him, let him go back into the bosom 
of the Mother Church, and remain there! Let him listen 



UNIVERSALIS!*!. 



to, and be bound by it, as he seeks to bind me by the voice 
of the Universal Church. There would then have been 
no Reformation, had such arguments prevailed; but it was 
this very idea, this mode of reasoning, that the Reforma- 
tion overthrew. (I speak of the Reformation of Luther; 
not that of Alexander Campbell.) 

Mr. Waller represents me as taking the position that 1 
am equal to Elijah, and to Jesus Christ, and to Luther; 
nay, as if I presumed to place myself above them all, 
Was that the point of my remarks? Did I make any such 
assertion? Did I say anything in disparagement of those 
great, high, and holy names? or elevate myself to their 
height? What then was my argument? It was simply 
this, as you know; that according to Mr. Waller's argu- 
ment, — that what the mass of the world believe must be 
true, — if he had lived in the days of those men, he would 
have been on the side of the majority, and would have 
been opposed to receiving anything from these reformers, 
believing that because they stood single and alone against 
the mass, they must be false; and that, upon his principle 
of deciding questions, he would have been an opponent of 
all reformations that have ever been commenced in the 
world. My remarks did not go to convey any such idea 
as that I considered myself equal to Luther, etc., but sim- 
ply to show, from referring to those cases, that the mass of 
minds were not necessarily, nor always right; and that 
even things which the world had unanimously rejected* 
might be true; aye, things universally rejected, have been 
demonstrated to be true, notwithstanding that the 44 mass 
of well regulated minds" was in opposition to them. 

Why, Sir, " he is a setter forth of strange gods," was 
the language of the polished Pagans to the Apostle PauL 
So Mr. Waller says; that it is a u strange and unheard of 
thing" that the doctrine of universal salvation taught in 
the Bible should not have been discovered before the time 
of Ballou ! Just so the Greeks thought of the Gospel 
preached by Paul! They believed in the infallibility of 
the majority ; and would not my friend have done the 
same thing, had he been there? acting, I mean, upon the 
same principles he has advocated here to-day. 

So far from such principles being applicable to the ques- 
tion, I believe — and has not Jesus Christ himself said it? — 
that the majority are generally in the wrong. Christ has 



46 



DEBATE ON 



said, " Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and 
many there be that find it. But strait is the gate and nar- 
row is the path that leadeth unto life; and few there be 
that find it" Watts has expressed it thus — 

"Broad is the way that leads to death, 
And thousands walk together there ! 
But wisdom show a narrow path, 
With here — and there — a traveler !" 

And the history of mankind shows this to be a general 
truth. I repeat it, it is generally the yew? who are correct, 
and not the many. It has been so in all ages. Mr. Waller 
talks about the mass. If left to the mass of minds, I ask 
what would have become of truth in past ages ? Did not 
the mass of minds, from the earliest times, depart from the 
one true God, and give themselves over to many gods 1 Are 
not the mass continually tending to forget the true God, 
and to believe in many and false gods'? There was a time 
when the truth that there was but one God began to be 
preached, in opposition to the unanimous opinion of the 
whole mass of human minds. My friend, if he had acted upon 
the principle that the opinions of men of wisdom and learn- 
ing must decide questions of this sort — which is his princi- 
ple to-day — would have said, Away with it! it is a 'new and 
sirange phenomenon, unheard of before; and the whole 
world has always been the other way; — away with this 
new doctrine of one God! There are many gods — see 
them all around — upon the nights of Olympus, in the tem- 
ples of religion, in the groves, and in the rivers. The 
great and learned of all ages have so thought. " These be 
thy gods! O people!" Thus he would have been a poly- 
theist in the days of polytheism, upon the principle that 
the majority — " the mass" — are right. 

Did not the Universal Church believe, for a time, in the 
doctrine of the " Real Presence V Had not the great 
body of the learned and pious and distinguished — the 
"mass of well regulated minds" who professed Christianity 
throughout the world for ages, been unanimous in this 
belief.' Even Luther himself admitted it, when he com- 
menced the Reformation. If my friend had lived at that 
time, he would have held to the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion, if he had been consistent with his present principles. 
My friends, we did not come here to ask what " the Church" 
has taught on the subject before us. If that were the rule 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



47 



of faith, I would go at once to Rome, and ask the Cardin- 
als and Pope to instruct me; for upon that principle, Pro- 
testantism and the Reformation are a nullity. We profess, 
however, to be governed by a different principle. We 
come here to ask what the Word of God teaches, and to 
abide by its decision; and no such question as this can be 
decided by the authority of the Church, or by the mass of 
men's opinions. 

I am obliged to be somewhat desultory in my remarks, 
in consequence of the different points which Mr. Waller 
has brought up. I come now to another of his remarks, 
made this morning. My friend, it seems, is determined to 
have some in Hell; and he says, if he gets them there one 
hour, he will keep them there eternally. 

Mr. Waller explained. I said if you put them there, 
for one hour, I would keep them there. 

Mr. Pingree. I will neither put them nor keep them 
there. I do not wish to be "the turn-key of Hell." But 
I will show where men have gone to Hell, and have come 
out again, if he likes. And I may refer to David, who says, 
" The sorrows of death compassed me about and the pains 
of Hell got hold upon me; 1 ' and he also says, "Great is 
thy mercy to me, O Lord ! for thou hast delivered ray soul 
from the lowest Hell!" Mark! even "the lowest" I 
may refer also to the prophet Jonah. You all recollect his 
fate. He refused, when commanded by God, to go and 
preach at Nineveh; and according to Scripture he went 
to Hell, as his punishment; for he says, "Out of the belly 
of Hell cried I, and thou heardst my voice." He also 
speaks of his having been there "forever;" though he 
was really there only three days and nights. Peter, 
speaking of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, says, ^ Thou 
will not leave his soul in Hell." Thus, our Savior went to 
Hell; but he did not remain there; he was delivered from 
it. These instances are enough for the present. Men do 
go to Hell, and then come out ag an— Mr. Waller's asser- 
tion to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. Waller began to talk about my being hard pressed, 
in his first speech, before he had begun to proJuce his ar- 
guments. I wonder if there is to be much of this? If 
there is, why, I must wait and endure it. It is one of the 
ways of some men in discussion, to speak of their oppo- 
nents being " hard pressed," etc, What is the object of 



18 



DEBATE ON 



this? It is for you to decide whether I am " hard pressed,'' 
and whether there is weight in the considerations which I 
bring forward. I shall not devote much time to such re- 
marks. I hope they will not often be repeated. I think 
they will not. But if they are, I shall not pay much at- 
tention to them. 

We come now to the subject of the forgiveness of sin. 
I shall here make a few remarks on his reply to the views 
I have expressed. 

It seems a strange thing to Mr. Waller, that sin should 
be punished under the government of God, and yet that 
there should be forgiveness of sin; and so he illustrates it 
by comparison with courts of justice; and asks if a court 
of justice should compel a man to pay a fine of one thou- 
sand dollars, and after it was all paid, forgive the crime for 
which ihe punishment was inflicted, etc. I propose to ap- 
peal to Scripture, and not to human governments, in this 
question. The forgiveness of God, as the Bible uses the 
word, differs from the forgiveness of man, in the legal 
sense, in this : It implies a cleansing of the sinner from sin; 
a making of him pure and holy. He is said to be "washed 
from his sins." It does not apply to the punishmen of sin ; 
but the sin itself Sin is sometimes represented as a disease; 
and forgiveness then is the cure. Suppose a man is sick; 
he suffers the pain of that sickness. Will you say that 
because he is cured of his disease, therefore he has not 
suffered all its pain? His pain lasted as long as his disease. 
So it is w ith sin. When we sin, we suffer for it; and not 
until we cease to sin, do we cease to suffer. 

To illustrate this by Scripture. In the first Epistle of 
Paul to the Corinthians 5th chapter and 3rd verse, it is 
said by the Apostle, " For I verily, as absent in the body 
but present in the spirit, have judged already, as though I 
were present, concerning him that hath done this deed." 
[You will recollect that Jesus Christ received a kingdom; 
and therefore he judged mankind. He also appointed his 
Apostles judges in his kingdom. Now Paul in the exercise 
of this authority exercised judgment upon this man.] 
"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are 
gathered together, and my spit it, with the power of our 
Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such a one unto Satan for the 
destruction of the jlesh, that the spirit may be saved in the 
4ay of the Lord Jesus." 



UNIVERSALIS*!. 



49 



Here is an instance of punishment; then, and of its 
coming to an end, as well as being remedial. Turn now 
to 2 Cor. ii. 6. The Apostle Paul says, " Sufficient unto 
such a man is the punishment which was inflicted of many;" 
— [here it is stated that this punishment was sufficient, 
there was enough of it;] verse 7, "So that, contrariwise, 
ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him, lest 
perhaps, such a one should be swallowed up with over- 
much sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would 
confirm your love toward him." 

Here, then, is an instance of a man delivered over to 
Satan for punishment. Here is an instance of the pun- 
ishment being sufficient, and here the sufficient punish- 
ment was followed by forgiveness. If Mr. Waller 
wishes to ridicule the idea, let him turn his ridicule upon 
the language of Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, and not 
upon the Universalists. 

We turn now to Isaiah, xl. 1, 2, for an illustration of 
the same doctrine. " Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, 
saith your God. Speak ye comfortably unto Jerusalem, 
and say unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that 
her iniquity is pardoned" — why? — " for she hath receiv- 
ed of the Lord's hands double for all her sins. 1 " 1 Here the 
sense of " double " is, full, entirely; as where we read of 
"double destruction." The punishment, then, was entire 
and complete ; and yet the sinners were " pardoned " — in 
the scriptural use of that word; Mr. Waller's sneers to the 
contrary, notwithstanding. These examples are enough 
to show that sin may be punished fully, and yet the 
sinner be pardoned. 

I do not propose to go through the column of " facts," 
presented by Mr. Waller, this morning. He says that the 
Greek church and Greek writers believed that the Bible 
taught the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the 
wicked. Be it so. It is generally dmitted; and so are all 
his facts generally. If this were to decide the question, it 
is very easily decided. Admitting that almost the entire 
church has believed in the doctrine of endless punishment, 
that is not the matter before us; the question is, " What 
do the Scriptures teach us?" The Church became 
sorrupt, after the Scriptures were given. 

There are one or two points remaining to be noticed. 
The Greeks, he said, have always used the same words 
4 



50 



debate air 



that are applicable to the future punishment of sinners m 
the New Testament, in their ordinary language, and y of 
course know the meaning of those words better than any one- 
else. But it must be remembered that the Greek language 
now is not the same language as was used at that time, and in 
which the Greek Testament was written. Then the argu- 
ment derived from the sentiment of the Greek Church has- 
no bearing upon the point. If it were identically the same, 
and used in the same sense then attached to it, it might 
apply. But it has essentially changed in its meanings 
and the fact of the Greeks using the word aionios, for 
instance, in the sense of endless, does not prove anything 
as to its precise meaning in the Bible. Because all lan- 
guages change from age to age, I have here two writers, 
whom I will refer to— both Orthodox, and distinguished 
for learning. One is Dr. Adam Clarke, and the other is 
Professor Stuart, of Andover. Both these writers are 
considered good authority; and they both say that the 
English word " Hell " has itself changed its signification, 
and that two or three hundred years ago, it did not ex- 
clusively signify Hell, in the sense in which it is now 
used; i. e. to mean the world of damnation in a future 
life. But it now means that, because the language is- 
changed. So in all spoken languages; they all change 
their signification in the lapse of time. 

A remark as to Origen. If I mistake not, Mr. Waller 
appeared to be in error in referring to the reply of 
Origen to Celsus, and saying that Origen did not deny 
that the Scriptures taught the doctrine of endless damna- 
tion. Mr. Waller admitted that Origen believed in universal 
salvation. It would be very strange, indeed, if he should 
have admitted a contrary doctrine to be the doctrine of 
Scripture, professing to be a believer in the Bible, as he 
was! I suppose Mr. Waller was led astray by this fact : — 
that Origen used the words " Everlasting," and " Eternal," 
in a limited sense. How else could he have used them? 
Not, certainly, in an unlimited sense ; for he is admitted not 
to have believed in endless punishment. What, then, is the 
true inference ? That he used those words in the same sense 
in which, being a Greek, he understood them to be frequent- 
ly used by the sacred writers; i.e. in a limited sense, espe- 
cially when applied to punishment. The inference is that 
that was their signification at the time the New Testa- 



UNI VERS ALT S 



51 



ment was written. Soon after the time of Origen, the 
words acquired in the language an unlimited sense; just 
as the word " Hell " has acquired a new exclusive mean- 
ing in the English language within the last two centuries. 

My friend disputes the early corruption of the Church. 
What does Paul say ? That " the mystery of iniquity 
had already begun to work," in his lifetime; and the end 
was to come when it had done working. Some taught 
that the " resurrection had passed already/' The church 
went astray very soon in theological and religious truth. 
It is of no use to appeal to the church after the days of 
the Apostles. One of the Apostolic Fathers themselves, so 
called, is said to have written a book called the Gospel of 
the Infancy of Jesus Christ, (or of Mary) — an absurd 
book, in which, among other stories, he has it that the 
swaddling clothes of the infant were taken to cover over 
the eyes of the blind, and that they cured the blindness! 
Great authority on the true teaching of Scripture! Can 
we imagine more absurd nonsense? And yet these are 
among the men who are appealed to, to establish the 
doctrine of endless misery! Permit me to say that they 
are not sufficient. Let my friend show what the Bible 
teaches. That is the proposition here, and that should 
be his inquiry. 

All this talk about the smallness of my body, sneers 
about my mind, etc., are not entitled to attention. "Great 
men are not always wise," and less wise men frequently 
arrive at the Truth. Do you suppose that Luther and 
Calvin were the greatest and wisest men in their age? 
No; there were men greater than they; and if we read 
of some of their conduct, there were better men than 
they. But they conceived and executed a great work; 
the establishment of the Bible as the ground of faith — 
not " the church." My friend could not have learned 
that from them. If it had depended upon the great and 
learned of that day, we should have had no Reformation. 
My friend had better go back to the bosom of the Mother 
Church! 

What said Luther? Carlisle represents him as saying, 
u I stand solitary, friendless, one man, on God's Truth; you, 
with your tiaras, triple hats, and your treasuries and 
armories, thunders spiritual and temporal, stand on the 
Devil's lie, and are not so strong ! " My friend Waller, as a 



52 



DEBATE ON 



Reformer and a Protestant, ought to accede to this, instead 
of going for the authority of the Church, in the face of 
the few who hold the truth. But enough on the subject 
of human authority, for the present. 

Arg. 3. I now present another distinct argument from 
Scripture, in favor of the doctrine of universal salvation. It 
is found in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. I drew my last 
argument from the eighth chapter of Romans; and will now 
take the fifth chapter for my next. I do not wait to see 
whether my previous argument will be set aside; because 
if I should, I shall have no opportunity to present all the 
arguments I wish to bring before you. on the present occa- 
sion. I proposed in my first speech to present a few pas- 
sages in each speech, for Mr. Waller's attention. But 
whether he notices them or not, I want all to understand 
the grounds of our Faith, as found in the Divine Word. 

Romans v., commencing with verse 12 : " Wherefore, as 
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; 
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have 
sinned;" [observe such is the condition of all men, espe- 
cially sinful, suffering, dying men, as I said at first.] 
'•"For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not 
imputed where there is no law: nevertheless death reigned 
from Adam to Moses, even over thine that had not sinned 
after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the 
figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence 
so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one 
many be dead : — [here is a new term, " many," intro- 
duced. W^hat does it mean? How "many" are dead? — 
Turn back to the twelfth verse, and you will see. " So 
death passed upon all men." All, therefore, die. "Many" 
here means all men; here, and throughout the Apostle's 
argument. I wish you to remember this, for I shall depend 
upon it;] " much more (fifteenth verse) the grace of God, 
and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, 
hath abounded unto many;" — [how many? why, as many 
as were dead ; that is, all men, as said before, and as we 
know to be the fact.] " And not as it was by one that sinned, 
so is the gift : for the judgment was by one to condemna- 
tion, but the free gift is of many offences unto justifica- 
tion. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one, 
much more they which receive abundance of grace and of 
the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus 



XJNIVEHSALISM. 



53 



Christ." — [How many were to " receive" this grace? The 
next verse will answer — all men.] 4< Therefore as by the 
offence of one judgment came upon all men, to condem- 
nation; [here the Apostle uses the word all; because 
all sinners are damned or condemned while unbelievers 
and sinners;] " even so by the righteousness of one the free 
gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 

Mark one thing : all those are to receive justification 
who were adjudged to condemnation — whether more or 
less. If all are condemned, then all are to be justified. 
If any are excluded, they are those that never sinned — 
that never die — that were never condemned, or damned. 
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made 
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be 
made righteous" [This is the way in which they are to be 
justified; — not in their sins, as our enemies slanderously 
affirm.] " Moreover the law entered that the offence 
might abound. Bui where sin abounded, grace did much 
more abound:" [Not true, if Divine grace never over- 
comes or destroys all sin; if sin shall prevail forever !] 
" That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might 
grace reign through righeousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
Christ our Lord." I repeat the declaration, and wish it to 
be remembered; that if any do not receive the gift of 
righteousness and eternal life, they are those who have 
not been judged, or condemned, or have not sinned, or 
died. But all men are sinners — all die, all are judged, 
all are damned or condemned; and the same all shall have 
the free gift, according to Paul's argument. So if there 
are any who will never be saved, it is those who have 
never sinned, and never die; — remember this. 

With this doctrine, corresponds the teaching of the 
Word of God elsewhere. Jesus Christ himself, says, " I 
came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." 
Matt. ix. 13. Paul says, 1. Tim. i. 15, " This is a faithful 
saying and worthy of all acceptation;" [and I wish my 
friend Mr. Waller would accept it;] "that Jesus Christ 
came into the world to save sinners." If there are any, 
therefore, who shall never be saved, they are those who 
are not sinners, and those who have not died. [ wish you to 
remember that, until this declaration of the Bible is set aside. 

But it is asked, How are sinners justified ? How are 
they received into heaven? Do they go to heaven in their 
sins? That is the charge made against our doctrine. I 



54 



DEBATE ON 



pronounce this charge a slander — a false and wicked slan- 
der. Universalists never uttered the thought that men 
were justified in that way— never! They have never 
preached, and never said, that the wicked and polluted go 
to heaven as such, or in their sin and pollution. How then 
are sinners justified and saved ? The next verse (Romans 
v. 19,) answers that question, as already shown: "For as 
by one man's disobedience many — the many, as Dr. Adam 
Clarke and others say, — were made sinners," [how many? 
all — see verse 12;] so by the obedience of one shall 
many — -the many, or the mass— he made righteous." 
That's the way sinners are justified. When righteous, 
they need no salvation ; but they are saved by leing made 
righteous. Perhaps my friend will say that the word 
many refers only to " the Elect." It refers to as " many" 
as have sinned. This is apparent on the face of the pas- 
sage; and he must acknowledge it. It is those that have 
sinned, and that die, who shall be blessed in this manner ; 
and if there are any who are not saved, let me emphatical- 
ly repeat, once more, it is those who have not -sinned, and 
do not die. All that sin, all that die, all the condemned, 
or damned, shall certainly be saved. 

Such is the next passage I now present for Mr. Wal- 
ler's examination. I have given and sustained my views 
of it; and Mr. Waller is under obligations to take it up 
and examine it, and endeavor to set it aside. But we will 
show its application to the question, whether he does or 
not. 1 do not know what his views of it may be. What- 
ever explanation he may give of the passage favorable to 
his own position, we shall endeavor to set aside his objec- 
tions when we hear them. 

Arg. 4th. In the meantime, I shall present still another 
argument from Scripture, before I sit down. It is derived 
from Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, chapter i., from the 
12th to the 20th verse. I will read the whole. It is a 
plain, unfigurative, irrefutable passage in favor of the doc- 
trine of universal salvation; for it teaches final univer- 
sal reconciliation. " Giving thanks unto the Father, 
which hath made us meet to be partakers of the saints in 
light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, 
and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son : 
in whom we have redemption through his blood, even 
the forgiveness of sins : who is the image of the invisi - 
ble God, the first-born of every creature : for by him 



UNIT EU SALTS LI . 



35 



weTe all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in 
•earth, visible .and invisible, whether they be thrones, or do- 
minions, or principalities, or powers: all things were crea- 
sed by him and For Mm, And he is before all things, and 
by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, 
the church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the 
dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. 
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness 
dwell: and, having made peace through the blood of his 
cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, 
I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.'* 

The Apostle here teaches the universal reconciliation 
of the unreconciled to God, through Jesus Christ. The 
sinner is now unreconciled, is in rebellion against God. 
The object for which Christ came was to reconcile the 
whole world to God. So Paul says, " God was in Christ 
reconciling the world to himself.'*' The whole world will 
be saved, therefore, if reconciled with God. All shall be 
finally reconciled, and " if reconciled, saved;" as Paul af- 
firms in Romans v. 

The question may arise whether Jesus Christ will suc- 
■ceecL It is admitted what he has undertaken to do — to re- 
concile all. He will either succeed, or fail! Has he 
undertaken too great a work? Will the Devil and his 
angels finally and forever prevent him from doing what 
he has undertaken to do? Some say so. But I say No : he 
shall not fail- In the language of the prophet Isaiah. 
" The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand," 
(Isaiah liii. 10:) "my counsel shall stand; I will do all my 
pleasure, saith the Lord." Permit me to introduce an illus- 
tration, in the Savior's parable of the foolish tower- 
builder. He asks, " For which of you intending to build 
a tower, sitteth not down first, and couateth the cost, 
whether he have sufficient to finish it ? Lest haply after 
he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all 
that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man be- 
.gan to build, and was not able to finish." Luke xiv. 
•28 — -30. The question is whether Jesus Christ is to fail, 
or succeed; whether he "counted the cost," and can 
M finish" the work, or not. 

I request all^hose who now hear Mr. Waller's conclu- 
ding speech for the day, to be present and hear my reply, 
to-morrow morning. 



56 



DEBATE ON 



MR. WALLER'S THIRD REPLY. 

I find my task unexpectedly easy; for really I had a 
right to anticipate a very different state of things. Those 
of you who have been favored with the light of that most 
brilliant luminary, ycleped the " The Star of the West,' 7 
may recollect that it was recorded in the columns of that 
most veracious hebdomadal, that the reason I failed to 
meet Mr. Pingree here last fall, was a defect in my organ 
of courage. And ought I not to tremble? For, according 
to the same authority, I find myself in the presence of one 
before whom the orlhohodox clergy of Louisville quailed! 
whom the redoubtable Hodgman would not venture to 
meet: and one, the fame of whose prowess in full many 
a bloody and bloodless field, afflicted me for months with 
fever and rheumatism, and brought me near the brink of 
the gravel and before him too, in this town, the theatre 
of his most valorous achievements ! But whatever of tre- 
pidation I may formerly have felt, st has all vanished now; 
and I really feel equal to the task of demolishing his last 
speech in a quarter of an hour. 

Respecting the passage he has quoted from Romans 8th y 
which he has adduced in proof of his doctrine, it is not 
necessary at this time that I should go into ail exposition 
of it only so far as to show that his exposition will not do — 
will not serve his purposes. He quoted at first, with great 
emphasis, the words "creature*" and " whole creation;' 7 
and then told us, almost in the same breath, that the terms 
did not include angels, or inanimate creation. He has 
also exposed, with great satisfaction to himself, the senti- 
ment which he is pleased to ascribe to Mr. Wesley, that it 
means the brute creation, I predicted he would have to 
limit those terms — that the necessity of his affairs would 
force him to reduce the whole creation to a very inconsider- 
able part. My anticipations have been more than realiz- 
ed. For he now says that " creature," the " whole crea- 
ture," means the human family, but that it does not mean 
the saints, or the new creation! They are excluded! 
They make no part of the human family! They do not 
wait for the manifestation of the sons of God — the redemp- 
tion of the body! But sinners do; and therefore the un- 
godly and the sinner, but not the saint, aijgto be ultimate- 
ly holy and happy! This is limiting the Text with a wit- 
ness! Can this intelligent audience receive such an ex- 
position 1 ? 



TJN IVER SALISM. 



57 



To sustain the interpretation that creature meant the 
human family, he quoted Colossians i. 15, where Jesus is 
said to be " the first born of every creature''' 1 to show that 
the word creature in the original (ktisis) meant the human 
family. If an appeal is made to the original word, every 
tyro in Greek can tell you that it just as properly means 
stocks and stones, the earth and stars, as the human family. 
It is the word universally employed in the New Testa- 
ment to represent that stupendous transaction, when God^ 
in the beginning, called all things into being. This word, 
therefore, can prove nothing for him; and only forces 
him to a limitation. I need not then pay further atten- 
tion to it. 

But once more to the magnificent assumptions of Mr. 
Ballou and his followers. You have read that among the 
seven wonders of the world was a. brazen statue at Rhodes, 
one hundred and five feet in heighth, striding across the 
entrance of the harbor, and yet vessels could sail under it. 
But a greater wonder and equally brazen is modern Uni- 
versalism. The mighty Colossus dwindles to a pigmy be- 
fore it. It assumes, and Mr. Pingree vindicates the as- 
sumption, that all the Christian world, from the Apostolic 
age to the nineteenth century, were incapable of under- 
standing one of the most vitally important and plainly re- 
vealed doctrines of the Bible; and that Hosea Ballou was 
the first man who did understand it! and Mr. Pingree him- 
self is at the head of the giant handful in Kentucky who 
can rightly divide the word of truth!! Well, I know my 
friend is small in stature, but his soul, no donbt, is large; 
and possibly he says to himself, (and perhaps with great 
propriety too) — 

" Were I so tall to reach the pole, 
Or grasp the ocean with my span, — 

I must be measured by my soul: 

The mine's the standard of the man!" 

What more than a Colossus mind he must possess so easily 
to bestride all the tallest intellects of earth! 

I do not propose to settle this question by vote. I have 
intimated nothing of the kind. But I do say, it is a 
strange affair; one wholly inexplicable, that this doctrine, 
so clear to Uniyersalists, so self-evident from the plain 
declarations of Holy writ, as they assert should not 
have occurred to any one, notwithstanding the intense 



o8 



DEBATE ON 



thought and application bestowed upon its investigation; 
but should have remained beyond the reach of all human 
research until a quarter of a century ago! That it was so 
plainly written upon the broad pages of the moral heavens 
that all eyes might have seen it; and that all eyes should 
be anxiously turned towards it, and yet that no individual 
from the foundation of the world ever suspected its exist- 
ence, until it was discovered by Hosea Ballou in 1818-^- 
this, this is the miracle of Universalism, and the one to 
which I have called your attention! I hope the gentleman 
will now be able to see my position on this subject. 

He need not try to class me with the adherants of the 
papal church. Indeed, I should think he has great cause 
to study church history. And what has my argument to 
do with the church, or with the pope of Rome? Did I not 
go back to the days of the Apostolic fathers, and of their 
teachers, the Apostles — long before the papal church 
began to tower in her iniquity and to tread upon the necks 
of men? But he argues as if all professed Christians 
were papists from the Apostolic age until the Reforma- 
tion! Does not the gentleman know that the Greek church, 
comprising a full moity of professing Christians, had all 
along repudiated the supremacy and the infallibility of the 
papal church? That there were numerous denominations 
of Christians, scattered all over the world, that from its 
beginning, loathed the papal church as the mother of 
abominations, the "whore of Babylon?" If he does not, 
he ought not to refer to church history until he has studied 
it more attentively. 

" A little learning is a dangerous thing: 
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." 

I marvel, that any one making pretensions to having 
read, should not know that long before Luther the majo- 
rity of professed Christians were opposed to the papal 
Church! This is almost as marvelous as that all Christians 
should have conspired in concealing this most cardinal 
doctrine of the Bible — man's future destiny — and should 
have actually kept it buried until Mr. Ballou disinterred 
it! Really, it is an honor to our country, to the age we live 
in, that it should have given birth to a mind cast in such a 
wonderful mould; and that the world will now jog on right 
after having gone wrong for six thousand years. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



59 



Mr. Pingree says he did not intend to put himself on a 
level with Elijah, the Savior, Luther, etc., and complains 
that I should throw out such an intimation. Well, he cer- 
tainly reckoned me with Baal's prophets, the pharisees, the 
papists, etc. And I supposed, that inasmuch as he and my- 
self were in controversy, that if I was on one side, he was 
on the other. I certainly put him in better company than 
he put me. Do you complain of the company I have 
assigned you? [Turning to Mr. Pingree. — A laugh.] 

But he says that he merely meant that this doctrine 
might be true although new, and although the great 
majority might be opposed to it. This is most true. I 
have not disputed it. He seems not to understand my 
ground. I say it would be a very strange affair that Uni- 
versalism should be true — very; still I grant that its nov- 
elty of itself is no argument against it; but that it should, 
under all the circumstances, be a novelty! The fact that 
only a little handful advocate it, of itself proves nothing: 
but under the circumstances, a doctrine so important, and 
in which all are deeply interested, to which so many hon- 
est and candid minds have given the scrutiny of their in- 
vestigation, it is a marvel, I say, that it has so few advo- 
cates! When Elijah stood alone against the prophets of 
Baal, he did not vindicate himself by the assumption that 
he was more wise than they: that he was in possession of 
a secret hidden from the foundation of the world. No: 
fire from heaven attested the truth of his doctrine. And 
when Jesus and his Apostles proclaimed to the world a 
doctrine which the wisdom of this world had not known, 
they were armed with miracle and the might of the Holy 
Ghost! Jesus knew that only proof of this sort was ade- 
quate to make men receive what none of the wise of earth 
had ever known. But Mr. Ballou arrays himself against 
the wisdom, the learning, and the piety of the world, and 
introduces a doctrine in opposition to it all, and without 
miracle, without fire from heaven, and without any pre- 
tensions to the extraordinary influences of the spirit; aye, 
without any pretensions to extraordinary intellect, or in- 
formation even, demands our implicit faith to his doctrine, 
which for six thousand years was indeed above the wisdom 
of this world, and which he, by some means or other, has 
been so fortunate as to pluck down! This is the marvel 
with me. And I insist that the gentleman must put himself 



DEBATE ON 



on a level with Elijan and Jesus Christ, before he can rea- 
sonably demand our subscription to his creed. They 
never would have insulted the common sense of mankind 
with a demand like his. 

As to what he said respecting my being in sentiment 
with the philosophers of Greece, instead of Paul, and 
about the majority's always being in the wrong, as well as 
the quotation, " Broad is the road that leads to death," etc., 
they are already answered. They are " as the idle 
wind." I cannot see for what purpose they are intro- 
duced, except to evade the very plain proposition that I 
have again and again pressed on his consideration. It is 
politic, 1 suppose, when one cannot withstand the force of 
a blow, to dodge it, if he can. 

We have not been talking about majorities; for on this 
question Christians have all been on one side. It so hap- 
pens, unfortunately for the gentleman's theory of majori- 
ties, that until 181.8, the whole human family, except a 
few atheists, infidels, and the lowest order of heathens, 
existing now and then during the lapse of ages since the 
creation of the world, have been unanimously opposed to 
his doctrine. Let him produce another instance, parallel 
to this, when all, for so long a time, were gone out of the 
way, and there was not one that could understand. His 
illustrations, until he does this, do not apply; indeed, are 
" bolts of nothing shot at nothing." 

His effort to put people in hell, and take them out, was 
a signal failure. He told us that David was in hell, -and 
was delivered from it; that Jonah was in hell; and, by the 
way, gave us the startling intelligence that forever was 
three days and nights ! Now, I used the term hell in the 
common received sense; I spoke of it, you remember, in 
connection with the view of the Restorationists. Does 
Mr. Pingree know anything of the original language of 
the Scriptures? -, If sO, he knows that the word used in the 
passages he quoted, — which I will not comment on at pre- 
sent, but will in 1 , due time, — is not the word which we 
claim as necessarily meaning a place of torment in a fu- 
ture world. And he very correctly said, too, that when 
our version was made*, the word hell in English was not 
always used in the sense it is now. He must then have 
presumed very much upon my ignorance, in quoting pas- 
sages that had no bearing upon what I said. Yes, I re- 



UNI VERSA LI S M. 



peat; I dare him to take the ground of the Restorationist. 
Let him once put a person in hell, and I will attend to 
him when he is getting him out. Was David dead, or had 
he been dead, when he penned the Psalm from which he 
quoted? Or was Jonah dead when he used the language 
that you heard mentioned? You see then that this was a 
miserable effort to evade the ground of the Restorationists; 
to seem to vindicate them, while he was opposing them. 
He was stabbing them under the fifth rib, while he was 
saluting them with a kiss. But all this by the way. I 
really suppose that Mr. Pingree intended no harm, for I 
seriously doubt if he knew what the original word was. 

I wish you to remember one important admission : he 
concedes that the Greeks have always held the doctrine of 
eternal punishment. True, he makes a feeble effort at 
retreat from the consequences of this concession, by say- 
ing that he had supposed the modern Greeks did not use 
the precise language of the New Testament. This is 
true of the modern Greeks; their language has changed, 
although it retains much of the ancient language. But 
mark; my position was this, and he does not, and he dares 
not dispute it: That the Christian Greeks have always 
held that Jesus Christ and his Apostles taught the doctrine 
of eternal punishment. But 1 need not say more on this 
matter now. 

The gentleman insists — and I am glad that he had the 
nerve to stand up to one position of his brethren — that a 
man, though fully punished for his sins, is nevertheless 
forgiven! True, he esteemed it due to the common sense 
of the audience to apologize for the declaration, by assu- 
ring them that the forgiveness spoken of in the Bible dif- 
fers from that spoken of among men. That in the two 
cases they are not to be understood at all alike. That in the 
Bible it means to c 7 eanse, to purify, to wash, etc. This 
is something I had not learned before, that forgiveness in 
the Bible was not a human word. I should like to know 
how he found it out. I grant that in no human language 
was it ever said, after a man had suffered the full penalty 
of his crime, that he was pardoned; and, indeed, I had 
supposed that the Bible made a vast distinction between 
forgiveness and purification. But enough; I am conscious 
he has taken me in water beyond my depth. [ have all 
my life long supposed the Bible was written in the lan- 



62 



DEBATE ON 



guage of men. If the word forgiveness is not to be un- 
derstood as a word belonging to the language of men, I 
have no clue to its signification. I do not profess to un- 
derstand any language that is superhuman! 

The gentleman asserted that the Christian church very 
early went astray — that " the mystery of iniquity worked 
in the days of Paul;" and as a most convincing proof of 
the early aberrations of the church, he alleged that one 
of the Apostolic fathers wrote a book called the Infancy 
of Jesus. Now I happen to have that book with me; and 
I am just now informed by my friend for the first time as 
to its authorship! But I believe he did not name which of 
those fathers wrote it. I think I can promise him a pre- 
mium if he will prove by whom it was written. Indeed, 
what he said on that point, was the latest intelligence I 
have heard — the very latest! Nor did I know either that 
all the early Christians apostatized; and I am yet to learn 
that the Bible teaches that all Christians were ever to do 
so. It teaches no such thing. Nothing can be more un- 
true than such a charge against the early Christians. 
Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that all Christians were 
to go astray so soon as the last Apostle died, and should 
remain so until the nineteenth century, in the night of 
ignorance and error, and then that a monstrous flood of 
light was to ' : deluge the earth, in the person of Hosea 
Ballou. But the Scriptures do teach that extraordinary 
events shall characterize the latter days, f This know 
also," says the Apostle, " that in the last days perilous 
times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own 
selves, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to pa- 
rents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce- 
breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of 
those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers 
of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of 
godliness but denying the power thereof : from such 
turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into 
houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led 
away with divers lusts, ever learning and never able to 
come to a knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and 
Jambres withstood Moses, so do these men also resist the 
truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the 
faith. But they shall proceed no further; for their folly 
shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.'- 



UN IVER S ALI SM. 



63 



2'Tim. iii. 1 — 9. Such is the character of some of the pro- 
jectors of new things in the last days, but there is no inti- 
mation of such a personage as the gentleman would 
have Mr. Ballou to be — No, not an intimation! 

His argument based on the 5th of Romans is soon dis- 
posed of. He omitted to read a very important part of 
the connection, and one that throws a flood of light on 
the whole passage; it is the twenty-first verse: " That as 
sin hath reigned unto death; even so might grace reign 
through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our 
Lord." The Apostle knows of no " eternal life" by Jesus 
Christ, except that which is " through righteousness? 
This does not suit the necessities of our friend, for he is 
contending for an eternal life not " through righteous- 
ness? Now why did he omit to read this, the conclusion 
of the Apostle upon his foregoing premises. Indeed, Mr. 
Pingree is proving the " ultimate holiness and salvation of 
all men;" where? in this life? No, he will not dare affirm 
it. But Paul is talking about this life — a righteousness 
" unto justification." Now he proves that we are justified 
by faith only; and moreover, he declares that "faith 
comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;" and 
asks, " how can they hear without a preacher." Now, 
mark Mr. Pingree's dilemma: The passage he quotes to 
prove his doctrine promises no salvation to any except 
"through righteousness," except upon "justification? to 
avail him anything then, he must assert that all men are 
justified by faith in this life — and the Bible teaches no 
other way of justification, — or else they are justified by 
faith in the life to come ! To say that all men have faith 
in this life is to contradict all experience and to give the 
lie to the word of God : and to say they obtain it in the 
next life, is to assume they hear the gospel, and that they 
have preachers there; for "how can they believe in him 
of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear 
without a preacher?" And who is it that preaches to the 
tenants of the charnel house? He assumed from this 
passage the holiness and salvation of all, but it was all 
assumption. For Paul promised salvation only to the 
righteous; and he recognized none righteous or justified 
without faith. But even the gentleman admits that all are 
not saved in this life; and as there is no punishment in 
the new life, there can be no sin there, for all sin is adc- 



64 



DEBATE ON 



quately punished] then there is nothing to be saved from 
in the next life; and his whole cause vanishes like "the 
baseless fabric of a vision!" He cannot escape this con- 
clusion: For you observe, while he asserts that it does not 
pertain to the question whether there is future punish- 
ment or not; yet all his argument shows that he believes 
there is none. He has not dared to take the Restorationist 
ground. Besides he is an avowed Universalist. I was 
challenged to meet him as such. And in spite of his ef- 
forts to the contrary, I mean to argue with him as such. 

He says that Jesus came to " reconcile all" to God, and 
that he is able to accomplish his purpose, and will do it. 
Without wasting your time in pointing out how the text 
referred to is garbled and misinterpreted; let us grant that 
it is stated in so many words that Jesus came that all men 
might be reconciled to God, which it is not; and the ques- 
tion arises, was he to reconcile them vi etjzrmis, whether 
they were willing or not? Was he violently to force them 
to reconciliation.' And besides many, alas! very many of 
them die unreconciled; and are they reconciled in the 
grave? Do the coffin, and the winding-sheet, the worm 
and the rottenness of the grave bring about this reconcili- 
ation, which the preaching of ;he cross of Christ could 
not do in this world? The gentleman says, he is not bound 
to respond to such inquiries. This is a convenient way to 
escape what he cannot do. But how not bound to answer? 
Does he want you to embrace his system, no matter how 
numerous the absurdities it involves? It is an insult to 
common sense. 

I now proceed with my argument. I did intend to read 
from Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, 
Tertullian, and some other of the fathers, but the conces- 
sions of Mr. Pingree render it unnecessary, and I will not 
consume time. I will now call your attention to the 
twelve following Assumptions of Universalism : 

1. Universalism assumes the charge of falsehood against 
the Apostolic fathers, and the whole Christian community 
immediately succeeding the Apostolic age, who all affirmed 
that the Apostles taught in their sermons and writings the 
eUrnal punishment of the wicked. Could it not, just as 
well, join with some of the infidels, and charge these same 
men with testifying falsely in relation to the authority of 
the New Testament. I must press these matters upon your 



ON UNIVERSAL ISM. 



65 



attention, notwithstanding the pain it evidently gives my 
friend. He won't let his God be merciful, he must not, 
therefore, complain if I should be found unmerciful too. 

2. It assumes that the whole Church in the second and 
third centuries were grossly in error on what the Apostles 
taught respecting this most fundamental and important 
doctrine. 

3. It assumes that the Greeks were not so capable of 
understanding and rightly interpreting plain and common 
Greek words, and which they were in the constant habit of 
using, as Hosea Ballon ! 

'4. It claims for Hosea Ballou and his followers a better 
knowledge, and a more critical acquaintance with the word 
of God, than that possessed by all the most eminently 
learned commentators that ever flourished. 

5. It assumes that all Christians for seventeen centuries 
were too blinded by prejudice, or ignorance, to see one of 
the most plainly revealed and most thrillingly interesting 
doctrines in the word of God. 

It asserts that Hosea Ballou was the first man since 
"the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God 
shouted for joy" over new-born creation, who had the ca- 
pacity to perceive and the boldness to declare the truth in 
relation to the final destiny of mankind. 

7. It claims that the sentiment peculiar to atheists, the 
meanest infidels, and Pagan philosophers of the lowest 
sort — that there is no retribution hereafter — is the true 
doctrine of the Bible. 

8. It asserts that, of the millions now living who profess 
the name of Jesus Christ, only the little handful of Bal- 
lou 's followers have a true knowledge of the Scrip- 
tures! — that only they walk in the light of God r s coun- 
tenance! — that only they possess the right paths! — in a 
word, that " they are the people, and wisdom will die with 
them!" 

9. In asserting that all who professed to be guided by 
the Bible were misled for seventeen centuries, and that the 
millions who now take it as the man of their council, are- 
in error on one of its most fundamental doctrines, Univer- 
sal ism assumes that the word of God cannot be understood 
by the mass of mankind; that it is a sealed book to ordina- 
ry and extraordinary intellects; and, without the special 
illumination of Hosea Ballou and followers, that all way- 



66 



DEBATE ON 



faring men, whether foolish or wise, will err in the high- 
way of holiness. 

10. In declaring that Hosea Ballou was the first man 
since the Apostolic age, who rightly understood and inter- 
preted the Bible, they assume that he knew better how to 
proclaim the truth to man — what language to employ and 
what illustrations to use, to prevent misrepresentation — 
than Jesus Christ, who knew all things. For all men, aye 
a child, can easily understand Ballou's books, while no 
man for seventeen hundred years was found capable of 
understanding God's book, on the subject of the future 
destiny of mankind. 

11. It assumes, in effect, that the Scriptures were not 
written in the language of men, nor for men, or else surely 
some man would have understood them on this vital point, 
in the lapse of centuries between their being written and 
the rising of the star Ballou. 

12. It asserts and claims your assent to a most astound- 
ing impeachment of God's wisdom and benevolence — that 
God gave the world a book containing his will to man; a 
book revealing his character and his laws, and to teach us 
every good word and work; and yet on the most material 
points, involving the greatest concerns of the soul, it was 
expressed in language so obscure — words so ambiguous 
and deceptious were used, that for seventeen hundred years 
there was not found a man who could interpret them ! Or if, 
asUniversalists contend, his will on this point was so plainly 
revealed that he that runs may read, then surely the Al- 
mighty smote all his professed worshippers who flourished 
in past ages, and the overwhelming majority who flourish 
now, with judicial blindness, so they could not see this im- 
portant truth. Viewing it in either aspect, and this is a 
most marvelous affair! 

But the assumpti'. ns of Universalism do not end here: 
it assumes to save unbelievers, though our Savior says 
they shall not be saved. He declares, Mark xvi. 16, "He 
that believeth not shall be damned" The word damned is 
opposed to saved. The meaning is, the unbeliever shall not 
be saved. The Universalist says he shall be saved ! Again, 
we read, John iii. 36, " He that believeth not the Son shall 
not see life." But the Universalist says, He shall see life! 

The Bible says, 2 Thessalonians ii. 11 and 12, " For this 
cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they 



UNI VERSALISM. 



67 



should believe a lie: that they all might he damned, who 
believe not the truth, bat had pleasure in unrighteousness:" 
The Universalist, on the contrary says, "God shall send 
them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that 
they all might be saved, who believe not the truth, but had 
pleasure in unrighteousness!" The Bible declares, 1 John 
iii. 15, " Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abi- 
ding in him:" The Universalist tells us that every murderer 
shall be holy and happy! — that all the murderers that ever 
lived are now holy and happy!! 

The Bible declares, Jude xiii. "These are raging waves 
of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, 
to whom is reserved the blackness of, darkness forever:" 
the Universalist declares, that these are raging waves of 
the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to 
whom is reserved the brightness of glory forever!! 

In short, Universalism assumes by the force of logic, to 
forgive the sin that " hath never forgiveness," to put an 
end to that punishment which is "everlasting" or "eter- 
nal," to give life to those who "shall never see life," to 
bestow the light of heaven upon those to whom is reserved 
" the blackness of darkness forever," to quench the fire 
that is " unquenchable," to kill the worm that "dieth not," 
and to save those who shall not be saved!!! Oh, how om- 
nipotent is the might of Universalism! And oh, how terri- 
bly it desolates the word of God! 

I will now introduce another point, as I have nothing 
else to do, and to fill up the time. I can easily fill up my 
time. I affirm, in opposition to Universalism, that the 
Scriptures teach that there is not a perfect retribution in 
this life. The doctrine of Universalism is, that sin receives 
its full reward in this world, and also righteousness. This 
is ccntrary to experience and fact. But I must, before 1 
proceed, read a passage in the " Pro and Con of Universal- 
ism." My friend complains of my reading from the wri- 
tings of Universalists. But he ought not. He specially 
recommended this book to my perusal, as a fair expose of 
his doctrine. I am sorry to afflict him, but hope it will re- 
sult in his good. I hope they will hereafter write better 
books. Our author says: 

" Thus it is seen, that such is the order of things in the 
economy of Providence, that each sin necessarily entails 
its own penal consequences; that escape from these, other- 



68 



DEBATE ON 



wise than by an avoidance of the causes which produce 
them, is absolutely impossible. ***** Suppose he 
were equally sure that sin will produce suffering, would he 
not have equal reason for avoiding it also? He would un- 
doubtedly: and hence is proven the importance of convin- 
cing men that misery is an absolutely certain result of 
wickedness; and in order to their being so convinced, they 
must be shown that the two things are naturally and neces- 
sarily connected together." pp. 259-60. 

[ need not quote more. The result of the matter is r 
that Universalism teaches that sin necessarily and of itself 
inflicts full and adequate punishment — that God has so or- 
dered it, that sin carries with it adequate misery. To this 
I object, first, because God, in the law he gave to the 
Jews, required the infliction of punishment for certain 
crimes beyond what sin inflicts upon itself. For proof of 
this, I refer you, without stopping to quote, to Leviticus 
xx. 14, and xxiv. 16, 17; Numbers xv. 32, etc., etc. 
These passages show, that the Almighty, under the Mosaic 
dispensation, instituted divers severe punishments, as death 
upon the murderer, above what sin brings upon itself. If 
*' each sin necessarily entails its own penal consequences," 
why did God ordain " penal consequenees" beyond these? 
Is God unjust? If sin "necessarily entails its own penal 
consequences," then to put the murderer to death is unjust, 
because undeserved and superfluous! 

Secondly. In opposition to the assumption of Universal- 
ism, that there is a perfect retribution in this life, I affirm 
that the prophets and other writers of the Old Testament, 
assert just the reverse. I need refer but to a few pas- 
sages. Psalms ciii. 10, "He hath not dealt with us after 
our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities." 
Now, if God did not deal with the sinners mentioned, and 
all other sinners, precisely after their sins, and reward them 
precisely according to their iniquities, then there is not a 
perfect retribution. Then Universalism is false, or the 
Psalmist was mistaken. Again: Ecclesiastes viii. 14, 
"There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that 
there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to 
the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men to 
whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous." 
If the wise man tells the truth, Universalism asserts a doc- 
trine that is false. Both statements, the one contrary to 



UNIVERSALIS!!. 



the other, cannot be true. Again: Ezra ix. 13, "And after 
all this is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our 
great trespass, seeing that our God has punished us less 
than our iniquities deserve, and hath given us such deliver- 
ance as this."' Universalism says that we are never pun- 
ished less than our iniquities deserve; Ezra says, we are* 
NoWj which will you believe? x^gain: Nehemiah ix. 30.31, 
44 Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst 
against them by thy spirit in thy prophets, yet would they 
not give ear. Therefore gavest thou them into the hands 
of the people of the land. Nevertheless for thy great 
mercy's sake, thou didst not utterly condemn them, nor 
;orsake them, for thou art a gracious and merciful God." 
So they were spared in mercy; and if this be in the lan- 
guage of men, it necessarily means, that there was punish- 
ment withheld, and a punishment that might justly and 
righteous'y have been inflicted. Indeed, Universalism ill 
asserting that every sinner is fully and adequately punish- 
ed, denies the Scriptures, that say. "By his mercy he saved 
us" — "by grace are ye saved;" because whenever grace 
or mercy is extended, it implies that the man is released from 
a punishment that might justly be inflicted. Once more; 
Lamentations iii. 22. "It is of the Lord's Mercies that we 
.are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.'" Here 
again we are taught, that sinners are spared in mercy, and 
of course a perfect retribution did not take place. Finally, 
Ezekiel xx. 44. "And ye shall know that 1 am the Lord 
when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not ac- 
cording to your wicked ways, nor according to your cor- 
rupt doings. Oh ye house of Israel, saith the Lord. ,? But 
the I niversalists say. that God wrought with them accord- 
ing to their wicked ways and according to their corrupt 
doings. Thus flatly contradicting the Most High; for he 
says, he does not! 

Thirdly. The various cruelties inflicted on the ancient 
worthies prove incontestibly that there is not a perfect 
retribution in this world. Speaking of all the holy men 
of old who suffered persecution for their faith, the Apos- 
tle says. "And Gthers had trial of cruel mockings and 
scourgings; yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. 
They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, 
were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheep 
■kins and goat skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented: 



70 



DEBATE ON 



(of whom the world was not worthy;) they wandered in 
deserts, and in the mountains, and in the dens and caves of 
the earth. And these all having obtained a good report 
through faith, received not the promise, God having provi- 
ded some better thing for us, that they, without us, should 
not be made perfect." Hebrews xi. 36 — 40. Here holy 
men are stoned, sawn asunder, driven outcasts from life and 
all its comforts, persecuted in every way that ingenuity 
could invent or malice inflict, and it follows, according to 
Universalism, that they received nothing but justice — that 
this was all the recompense these holy men were ever to 
receive for their devotion to God!! 

Behold the doctrine! — Universalism comes like an angel 
of mercy, to the proud and haughty sinner — who despises 
God's law and regards not man — who, like the rich man in 
the parable, fares sumptuously every day, who is clothed 
in purple and fine linen, and enjoys his good things; sur- 
rounded by friends, honored, admired, flattered — to such a 
man it comes and says, — " Sir, you are now suffering the 
torments of hell; you are now in the agonies of the sec- 
ond death, in the flames of that fire which is never 
quenched; on you now gnaws the worm that never dies; 
and this is all the pain you will ever suffer. You have 
blasphemed God's name, and persecuted his saints, and 
you are now reaping the fruits of your doings to the ut- 
most extent, and you now suffer all that you ever will for 
your sins!!!" Oh just and righteous Father! have they 
not cried peace to the sinner, when thou hast said there 
is no peace? 

But if it is an angel of mercy to the ungodly and the 
sinner, Universalism comes like a " goblin damned" to 
the persecuted children of God — to the stake of the 
martyr, to those persecuted for righteousness' sake, to 
the sick chamber of the poor, the pious and the bereaved. 
It says to the faithful, but suffering Christian, writhing in 
-the agonies of a martyr's death — [Moderators: Time 
expired.'] 

[mr. pingree's fourth speech.] 
Respected Friends: — Before entering upon my reply to 
the last speech of Mr. Waller, it may be as well briefly to 
notice the progress of the discussion so far. In the first 
place, I will again name the proposition for debate : it is. 



UNIVERSALISM. 



11 



41 Do the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and salva- 
tion of all mankind?" The terms involved in this propo- 
sition were defined by me in my opening address: that 
is, what I proposed to defend, and not what other men have 
advanced on kindred and minor subjects. I shall not be 
expected to defend other propositions, and leave this; I 
have not sufficient time to defend them, nor any sufficient 
motive at this time to do so. 

Do the Scriptures, then, teach the ultimate holiness and 
salvation of all mankind? This being the proposition, my 
first argument was drawn from the nature and character of 
God, and his relationship to man; — that his nature is love 
— that this is his essence and name ; — that he is good to 
all; the Father of our spirits; kind even to the evil and 
unthankful, and unchangeably the same, now and forever: 
so that, if he is good to his creatures now, and to the evil 
and unthankful, he will continue so forever and forever. 
If he inflicts endless misery upon any of his creatures, it 
will be done from a spirit of goodness and love, and for 
their benefit. But this strikes us as absurd ; therefore he will 
not inflict such misery. We are led rather to believe, — 
and this is our faith and hope, — that he will purify and 
make holy all those whom his power and goodness have 
for benevolent designs brought into being. 

My second argument was from the 8th chapter of Ro- 
mans; where the Apostle declares that the "creature shall 
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glo- 
rious liberty of the children of God." I showed that the 
word "creature" meant creation, and that it could apply 
to nothing but human creatures, whose was "the earnest 
expectation, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of 
God," who were ¥ made subject to vanity," and who were in 
"the bondage of corruption;" and that therefore they are 
the ones who ■" shall be delivered," finally. I stated no time 
for the accomplishment of this. The Bible states none. 
No day is fixed in Revelation, for this to take place; but 
all shall be delivered; no matter when, or where, or 
how. 

The only reply Mr. Waller has made to this is, that 1 
•excluded " the saints" from the deliverance. I did not 
exclude the saints. I said it could not apply to the brute 
creation, nor the angelic creation, nor to the glorified 
saints who are already delivered. I did not exclude the 



72 



DEBATE ON 



saints — they were once sinful, once in " the bondage oi 
corruption," from which they are delivered. The promise 
reaches farther back than the time of their becoming 
saints. So the Bible throughout teaches us. Though 
they are now saints, they were not always saints, but were 
once sinful, and from that condition have been delivered 
as all mankind — the whole human creation — are ultimate- 
ly to he; and more perfectly. I hope this will be under- 
stood. { was talking about the condition of sinful man that 
was subject to vanity, and in " the bondage of corruption." 
The passage of course applies to all men while sinful. But 
it does not embrace the saints alone, after they are made 
saints, and are already delivered. I also quoted Hebrews 
ii. 15; "and deliver them who through fear of death were 
all their life-time subject to bondage;" after the destruc- 
tion of whatever has " the power of death." 

My third argument was from Romans v.; where Paul 
himself urges the truth, that all have sinned; but whereas 
they have been subject to sin, they shall be made pure 
by the grace of God: And as a condition following the 
condemnation of all men for sin through Adam, is the 
reception of the free gift of righteousness through Christ. 
Verse 19. " For as by one man's disobedience many [i. e. 
all — see verse 12,] were made sinners, so by the obedi- 
ence of one, shall many [the same many] be made right- 
eous." It is because they are to be made righteous, that 
they are to be saved; not in their unrighteousness. To 
this argument there was no reply from Mr. Waller. He 
entered into no examination of the passage, and made no 
attempt to set it aside. It stands as a firm and unshaken 
pillar of the doctrine of the final righteousness and salva- 
tion of all mankind, through the gift and grace of God. 
It makes men righteous. It goes farther back than sin. 
It makes them righteous and thus saves them. 

My next and fourth argument was from Colossians and 
Eomans, where it is declared to be Christ's design to re- 
concile all the world to God. That, this being his design, 
he is able to accomplish what he intends, and will do it, 
sooner or later: and to this argument I have heard no 
reply from Mr. Waller, but the questions, "Where, and 
when, and how? where, and when, and how?" — To this 
I will only say, that the proposition before me does not 
require me to tell where, and when % and how, Christ will. 



UNIVERSALISM. 



73 



ultimately accomplish his purposes: and having made this 
remark, I shall pay no more attention at present to these 
questions of Mr. Waller. The time may come when I 
shail do it, if I think proper. But this is not the time for 
it. The passages themselves teach no time or place; nor 
shall I now. They only say that it shall be accomplished. 
When passages are brought forward which show the time, 
I will speak of it. I establish the proposition as it stands. 
I care not when, or where, or how, in the Providence of 
God, these things are brought about. I care not, so far as 
the proposition and argument are concerned, if it be after 
a thousand millions of ages, if it is done ultimately; and 
all the creatures who were made subject to vanity be 
delivered from the bondage of corruption, become right- 
eous, and reconciled to God. He wants proof, and is wait- 
ing for it. What I have proved is enough; is it not? 

The gentleman wants to introduce new points into this 
discussion. The doctrine of no future punishment is one. 
We may speak of that bye and bye. He defines that to 
be Universalism. It is not Universalism, exclusively. 
Many hold it. I do not myself believe in future misery. 
Of that we shall speak bye and bye; but not yet. We 
want first to show that great and glorious and central 
truth of the Bible, the ultimate holiness and salvation of 
all men. Whether punishment is confined to this, or 
extends into the future world, is not the question. I shall 
not be drawn away from the true question by all Mr. Wal- 
ler's efforts in that direction. He is welcome to all the 
•advantage he can gain by discussing such questions now; 
and may have ail the impression, and make all the use he 
pleases of them. He may have what triumph he imagines 
himself to have gained, and may keep it for the rest of 
his life. We shall see. 

What has Mr. Waller done to set aside my first argu- 
ment? my second? third? and fourth arguments and 
proofs from Scripture? What has he done? He has 
only appealed to the mass of mankind, and the learned 
and distinguished in all ages! He has not advanced a 
Scripture argument, nor attempted to explain the Scrip- 
tures I have adduced. I have not heard a word of it. 
But he has appealed to the "mass of well regulated 
minds," and the opinions of other fallible and uninspired 
men, and says that all men believe as he does, except 



74 



DEBATE ON 



Universalists — a principle at war with all human progress, 
as I have shown ; and when the occasion demanded argu- 
ment, what have we had? Argument? No; the most we 
have had has been witticism of various sorts; such as 
commenting on my size, that I was a small man; and 
quoting verses about " a little learning being a dangerous 
thing," etc., etc., and *' small boats keeping near shore in 
deep water;" intimating, of course, his ability to navi- 
gate safely and far in deep waters. Perhaps the lan- 
guage of Solomon might not be unappropriate here: 
Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit ? there is more 
hope of a fool than of him!" I did not make pretensions 
to superior learning. Have I expressed any such thought? 
Have I claimed to be any wiser than others? Have I used 
any such language? Not at all. .1 have attempted to read 
the Bible and to explain it, according to the Protestant 
principle. That is proper, and right; is it not? If we are 
to appeal to tradition, I repeat once again, let us go back 
to the Mother Church ! I profess to have but little learn- 
ing. Why, then, am I taunted here before all this intel- 
ligent audience, with my want of it, as though I had made 
assumptions'? Is it not enough to have " little learning," 
but 1 must be ridiculed, as if I had made some great pre- 
tensions ? I hope we shall hear no more of it. 

1 am sorry that my friend is disappointed in the present 
rencounter; that he expected to meet a great man, a 
mighty champion, etc. But how am I to help his chagrin 
and disappointment? what can I do, in view of not being 
so great a man as he expected to meet? I must endure his 
witticisms in silence, and be as patient and quiet as possible. 

It seems a monstrous thing to my friend, that the world 
should be in blindness so long on this subject; that all the 
learned and pious should be in the dark, and that now a 
light, should appear, rising like a " bright peculiar star," to 
clear up this darkness. Yet it is not strange, when we 
know that this has been the way from the creation of the 
world; that when any new truth has been discovered, and 
promulgated, men have said, Away with it! away with it! 
The whole world thinks the other way. It is a new thing, 
and therefore can not be true. According to the gentle- 
man's reasoning, when Universalism becomes popular, then 
it will be true; wont it? When it is a new thing, and but 
few men advocate it, it is false and heterodox; but when 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



75 



all men begin to believe it, then it is true ; and the signs 
of the times are, that it will be generally received. Uni- 
versalism, seventy-five years ago, had but one Preacher 
in this country. Nov/ it has more than six hundred. 
Then it had but here and there a believer; — now it num- 
bers seven hundred thousand; not including Unitarians 
and others. Well now, bye and bye, we may be in the 
majority at that rate; then Mr. Waller will perhaps come 
over to us, when he finds himself in a minority, and think 
we are right, because in the majority. 

I wish you, my friends, to call to mind his concession 
that there are but two ivords in the Bible signifying a 
world of wo in the future life. I do not intend to argue 
that point now, but only to call your attention to this 
admission. 

He said that the Greek Church held, from first to last, 
that Jesus Christ and his Apostles taught the doctrine of 
eternal punishment. That is not the question. But Ori- 
gen himself, it is admitted, did not believe the doctrine 
taught by Mr. Waller to be a doctrine of Christianity. 
How then could he have attached my friend's meaning to 
the language of Christ and his Apostles? On the contrary, 
the fact is evidence that the words in the Greek did not 
convey to his mind, being a Greek, that meaning, in his 
day. He took them and believed in them as the teaching 
of the Bible; but not in the modern sense of those words. 
So did Clement of Alexandria, who lived before Origen's 
time. So did Didymus, if I am not mistaken, and Greg- 
ory Nazianzen; and so I maintain the Christian world 
took them, till the Catholic church condemned the doctrine 
of final salvation, and established that of endless damna- 
tion, about five hundred years after Christ. No, the 
Church never held this latter doctrine, till the time of 
Tertullian, so far as history informs us. I know of not a 
single man who advocated it till his time, who said that the 
misery of the wicked was equal in duration to the happi- 
ness of the righteous. He is the first man of distinction 
in the Christian church, that I am aware of, who ever 
distinctly taught it. And how? What was his spirit? It 
was the spirit congenial to the doctrine itself. For Ter- 
tullian, in speaking of the persecutions of the Christians, 
and relating how they suffered at the hands of their ene- 
mies, exclaims, in view of their enduring " all Hell-hor- 



76 



DEBATE OK 



rors" hereafter, "How I shall laugh! and how exult! 
how rejoice! when seated in heaven, and our enemies in 
Hell, to see them writhing in the tortures of Hell fire! 
To see them spitted, and roasting upon gridirons, or 
dancing in the flames of eternal fire!" This would fill 
his soul with delight and exultation! This would sweeten 
to him the joys of heaven! a worthy man to say that the 
punishment of the wicked must equal in duration the hap- 
piness of the righteous! But let that pass. 

Mr. Waller said that the forgiveness of God was accord- 
ing to the meaning of the human language; because that 
is the language in which the Bible is written. He said 
that therefore the sinner could not be fully punished, and 
yet the sin forgiven; because the same could not happen 
in human courts of law; and therefore forgiveness means 
the same in God's law as in man's language. Has he at- 
tempted to set aside the Word of God which I quoted, where 
the penal y was all suffered, yet the sinner forgiven? No. 
But he has applied himself to ridicule. That was the 
amount of his argument. Let him set aside the passages 
I have quoted: unless he chooses to rest upon ridicule in 
such matters; ridicule, too, not of us merely, but of the 
Bible. Let us have the Word of God. Did not David, the 
anointed king of God's people, commit murder and adul- 
tery? and what was the sentence of the Prophet of God 
upon him? Nathan told him, " your crime is pardoned, or 
forgiven. But nevertheless, your child shall die, and the 
sword shall not depart from your house." Now did not 
David endure the penalty of his offence; yet was he not 
pardoned? When he sets this aside, not by ridicule, but 
by Scripture, 1 shall find more to the same effect. 

His quotation from Origen in reference to his being 
mistaken, only confirms what I said as to his use of the 
word, " everlasting," as applied to punishment. The use 
of this word he did not understand as a proof that it was 
endless. Jesus and the Apostles applied the Greek word 
which is translated " everlasting," to the punishment of 
the wicked. So Origen naturally used it in a similar 
sense; that is, in a limited sense. But let us pass on. 

We hear the inquiry, " saved from what ?" I answer^ 
saved from sin and death, to holiness and immortality. 
I ask him now, if he says it is from an endless Hell, to 
ahow the place where it is taught? As to us, we find the 



UNIVERSALISM. 



77 



place where our doctrine is distinctly expressed : " For he 
shall save his people from their sins" — not from endless 
damnation. If he thinks the latter, we ask, Where is it 
taught? I challenge the producing of such a passage in 
the Oracles of Truth. 

As to his twelve assumptions of Universal ism, I pass 
them all by. Let them have all the weight they are enti- 
tled to. They all relate to the great sagacity and wonder- 
ful and marvelous doings and character of Hosea Ballotj. 
His last speech was filled, almost, with ironical praise of 
the greatness and sagacity of Hosea Ballou. "He was 
the man; and wisdom was to die with him:" and what a 
wonderful thing it was, that he should be the one to make 
these strange discoveries in Scripture, etc. But I pass it 
all. If Father Ballou were here, he could look after 
these things for himself; but he is not. One other 
thought Mr. Waller had, — that the Bible did not teach 
any thing about the coming of Hosea Ballou in these 
latter days; not in 1818, at least; or any other such per- 
son in any other year, though a good many other men 
were to appear, as " deceivers," etc. He will recollect 
probably that in Revelation, an " angel" was to appear 
" having the Everlasting Gospel to preach to men." I do not 
know but that was Hosea Ballou. We can say, at least, 
that this may be a prophecy of his coming, and of the 
present revival of original Christianity ; and I also main- 
tain, that Hosea Ballou 's is a greater Reformation than 
Luther's itself, or Calvin's, or those others which are con- 
sidered so great in these days; and will work greater 
things in the purification of men's hearts, and in turning 
their minds to God. 

"But Universalism saves unbelievers." Who but they 
should be saved ? Why save believers only? Salvation 
goes farther back than belief, and makes them believers 
and righteous. In Romans xi., it is said, " For God hath 
concluded them all in unbelief" — what for? to damn them 
endlessly? Then it is universal damnation! none are 
saved; but what follows? " that he might have mercy upon 
all." To the same effect are the proofs which I have 
presented on this occasion. The Bible just states how 
many of mankind have sinned and gone out of the way,, 
and then by that we are told how many will be made holy 
and saved. Sinners and unbelievers are the only ones ta 



78 



DEBATE ON 



be saved — saved from sin and unbelief. " The whole 
need not a physician," says the Savior; " but they that 
are sick." 

Mr. Waller brings up a number of passages relating to 
the punishment of sinners, and then contrasts the Univer- 
salist doctrine with the doctrine claimed by him, by way 
of opposite readings; namely, such passages as say that 
the drunkard, the liar, etc., " shall not see life," and that 
the Universalists say they " shall see life," etc., etc. 
What does Mr. Waller preach for? Is it not to bring men 
to believe on the Son of God? Is not that his mission on 
the earth — whereby the unrighteous may " see life?" Kow 
can the unrighteous see life? Can they see it while they 
remain in darkness and unbelief? No; they see it in the 
light of faith and righteousness. The Bible says that 
while men remain sinners they are in condemnation, and 
the wrath of God abideth on them. How long does it 
abide? While they continue sinful. But they are made to 
see the light, and become righteous; and then the wrath of 
God is removed. 

So with the passage quoted by him, — " no murderer," 
etc., " hath eternal life." What have we to do with that? 
Who disputes it? Did he ever know a Universalist deny 
it? Never, never? What is it quoted for? Is it to prove that 
murderers never can be saved? If that is not the object, 
the text has no place in this discussion. But I ask my 
friend if he does not believe murderers may be saved ? I 
should like an explicit and direct answer to this in his 
next speech. I insist on this from him in reference to the 
passage quoted. My friend, allow me to say, does believe 
that some murderers are saved. But he will say, not as 
murderers. Neither do we. I have hinted no such doc- 
trine as that. We say they are saved from their revenge- 
ful dispositions. That is what constitutes them murderers. 
" He that hateth his brother is a murderer ." Does the pas- 
sage sweep all such into damnation, and is that damnation 
endless. What then are we to do with it? Is it quoted 
to bear on this discussion! Can no murderer ever be 
saved? Yes, all. If the gentlemen dare deny that some 
murderers are saved, I want to know why he preaches to 
the sinner? If he admits that some are saved, why quote 
this passage as bearing on this discussion? W T e admit the 
passages as applied to the punishment of sin, in this life. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



79 



But if he denies that any murderers are saved, I shall 
have something more to say. I add nothing more at pre- 
sent. I hope he will not pass over these remarks; be- 
cause he quotes a great many such passages; such as 
that " all liars shall have their portion in the lake that 
burns with fire, 1 ' etc. He will find that he must believe 
that all men must be damned eternally; because all men 
sin while they live. " No man liveth and sinneth not."' 
But if he wishes us to understand that these passages 
apply to a future state, he himself does not believe the de- 
claration. I charge it upon him : He don't believe the 
declaration. Not an orthodox man in the world believes it. 
They are continually talking upon the eternity of future 
punishment, and quoting such passages, and I now charge 
it on Mr. Waller that he don't believe the passages, if 
taken to mean punishment in a future life, and that the 
second death is in a future state. He don^t believe the pas- 
sages. I repeat this, and insist upon it; because of the fre- 
quency of such quotations, and the importance attached to 
them in this discussion. I admit all the passages to be 
true. I admit that all murderers, liars, etc., have not 
eternal life, but are condemned to Hell, etc. We shall 
have this word, Hell, in debate bye and bye. If the words 
rendered Hell, are brought to bear on the doctrine of end- 
less punishment, I shall have something else to say about 
them. If these remarks are turned -aside in the next 
speech of Mr. Waller, I shall set it right when I make my 
next reply. 

The punishment denounced in such passages is in the 
present life; because denounced against all — and all are 
not punished hereafter, as is admitted. He insists upon 
my arguing the question whether all punishment is in the 
present life, or whether there is any future retribution 
for sin. / shall not go aside from the main proposition. 
I have too frequently noticed small matters as we go along, 
however; and I will here notice a remark he made about 
the sufficiency of retribution in this life. He quoted a 
passage where God authorized the punishment of murder 
by the Mosaic law. The murderer was to be stoned to 
death; and that was a proof that sin did not adequately 
punish itself. I ask who punishes sin? or when or where 
shall we say it is punished ? Does he want to take a 
cudgel to knock his own brains out? The very facts quoted. 



80 



DEBATE ON 



show that the punishment brought on by the sin was in- 
flicted in this life, on his own admission: and that, while 
he is contending that men are not rewarded according to 
their deeds in this life. He should refer to cases in Scrip- 
ture, where men are not rewarded, and where all the pun- 
ishment denounced by God is not inflicted, in this life. 

In Proverbs xi. 31, it is declared that "the righteous arc 
recompensed in the earth; much more [or assuredly] 
the wicked and the sinner." Is there a solitary passage 
where the Bible has said the contrary? There may be 
passages where it is told that the wicked had not been 
adequately punished at some one point of time in their 
lives; and yet there may have been still a point of time 
when they were to be fully punished, though that time 
was not then. It does not follow that they are never fully 
punished in this life, because at any particular point of 
time, it has not been all endured. 

There is one passage from Hebrews ii. 2, which settles 
the question conclusively, as to whether men may be fully 
punished in the present state of existence. " For if the 
word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every trans- 
gression and disobedience received a just recompense of 
reward; how shall we escape," etc.? Mark! — "Received 
a just recompense of reward." Is it not a strange thing 
under the Divine government, that they should be declared 
to have already received their punishment — a just punish- 
ment; and that God should damn them endlessly — punish 
them over again ! ? Every transgression and disobedience 
had received its reward, and yet those men are to be taken 
hereafter, and judged, and sent to Hell forever! But let 
that pass, for the present. 

The next point is the present misery of the righteous, 
and the happiness of the wicked. Mr. Waller teaches 
that; he says the righteous are not rewarded, nor the 
wicked punished, in this life. Hear what the wise man 
says on this point: "He that justifelh the wicked, and he 
that condemneth the righteous, both are an abomination to 
the Lord." Mark you : " He that justifieth the wicked, 
and he that condemneth the righteous, both are an abomin- 
ation to the Lord." Now Mr. Waller makes God commit 
this "abomination." The wicked are happy and the 
righteous miserable under God's government. Oh! but 
they are to be recompensed hereafter : justice is not done 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



81 



them in this world, to be sure; but will be in the next. 
Well, if God is not just here, there is no evidence that he 
ever will he. If he is unjust here, he will be unjust fore ver, 
unless he changes. If he is unjust to the wicked man, and 
to the good man, in this life, he must be so to all eternity. 
For he is unchangeably the same, now and forever. 

People are accustomed to argue that because the good 
man is not rewarded and the wicked punished in this life, 
they will be in the next. This would be the very reason 
why they will not; for the Supreme Ruler changes not. 
But it is asked, Is not immortal life the reward of the 
righteous? No. It is simply the gift of God ; as is the 
present life. If there are sinners hereafter, and if any 
suffer temptation, and yield to it, in the next world, I ad- 
mit they will be punished hereafter. If sin is to be end- 
less, punishment will be endless; because where there is 
sin, there must be punishment, whether in time, or in 
eternity. 

Arg. 5. One other argument I will now advance ; and 
will quote a passage or two containing the word " salvation." 
I am aware there is a debate as to the meaning of this 
term. But as we are so far advanced, I shall take the 
liberty to refer to it. I shall claim it in the sense assum- 
ed in the proposition. However many other meanings it 
may have elsewhere, I shall claim this meaning for it in 
the following passages; and defend it. 

1 Tim. ii. 4: " Who (God) will have all men to be saved, 
and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." Here the 
Apostle does not say when or where men are to be saved. 
That he does not tell us; nor do I, now. He states only 
the great central truth, that God will have all men to be 
saved. 

One word as to the certainty of the accomplishment of 
all that God wills. See Isaiah xliii. 13: "I will work, and 
who shall let it?" Daniel iv. 35: " He doeth according 
to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabit- 
ants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto 
him, What doest thou?" The will of God will certainly 
be done. The question now is, does the phrase " all men" 
here, mean all men? I shall not touch that question, until 
Mr. Waller denies that position. 

1 Tim. iv. 9, 10: " This is a faithful saying and worthy of 
all acceptation; for therefore we both labor and suffer 
6 



82 



DEBATE ON 



reproach, because we trust in the living God who is the 
Savior of all men, especially of those that believe." — 
Here is a plain declaration of the salvation of all men, 
and especially of those that believe. We admit that there 
is a present, special salvation to the righteous; but insist 
that the salvation of all men is the ultimate salvation. In 
what sense is God called the " Savior of all men" in the 
present life? as some assert. 

I will resume this subject, in my next speech, nothing 
preventing. 

[me. waller's fourth reply.] 
Mr. Bruce, one of the Moderators, here said that he 
wished to read one of the Rules of Discussion, viz. " 5. 
The disputants are not to indulge in any personal reflec- 
tions towards each other, but shall treat each other with 
respect and courtesy." 

Mr. Waller.. The reading of that rule after Mr. Pin-, 
gree had set down, and since I have arisen to speak, 
authorizes the conclusion that the reader of it designed 
somehow to apply it to me; either that I had violated it, 
or that unless 1 was careful I would do so in responding to 
the last speech. He need have no fears of my response. 
I feel no disposition even to come as near violating it as. 
Mr. Pingree thought proper to do. And if it was designed 
to apply to any thing past, I am sure this audience will 
vindicate me from the implied imputation. I am sure 1 
have intended no personal reflections upon my opponent, 
none whatever; nor do I believe I have used any. True* 
Mr. Pingree has complained because I quoted Pope in refer- 
ence to "a little learning;" but I made no application of 
the passage. If it suited him to apply the quotation to 
himself, and as suitable to his circumstances, am I to be 
held responsible? I have a right to quote the poets, nor 
will I yield that right : and 1 am not at all disposed to 
question the gentleman's right of making any application 
of them that suits his convenience. 

It will be proper, this morning, to spend a little time in 
recapitulation. You will bear in mind the question, " Do 
the Scriptures tench the ultimate holiness and salvation of all 
mankind ?" It is the business of Mr. Pingree to establish 
this proposition; and 1 have done all that the conditions of 
the question require when 1 simply show that he ha" not 



UNIVERSALIS!!. 



83 



proved it. I am not bound to do more, although I intend 
to do much more. 

Now how does my friend prove this proposition? By di- 
rect proof ? No, but by the most tortuous ratiocination. 
In the first place, he infers from the character of God, his 
goodness and his love, that all men will ultimately be holy 
and saved; and yet the plenitude of that goodness and love 
is made appear by asserting that God metes out to every 
transgressor a fall and adequate punishment for every sin! 
and consequently, in denying his mercy, his grace, and his 
forgiving love!! Our heavenly Father, according to him, 
forgives no debt, but in marvelous goodness, exacts the 
uttermost farthing! And in this way, without grace or 
mercy, makes holy and saves all!! 

But he goes further; and in connection with this point, 
draws another inference in favor of his doctrines, from the 
unchangeable goodness and love of God. God loves his 
creatures now, even sinners, and is good towards them; 
and as he is unchangeable, this goodness and love must 
continue forever, and hence follows the ultimate holiness 
and salvation of all mankind! But this argument is two- 
edged : it cuts both ways; and if it establishes Universal- 
ism one moment, it decapitates it the next. Thus : God's 
goodness and love to his creatures are manifested in the 
sin and misery of his creatures in this world, and since his 
loving kindness changes not, they must remain in sin and 
misery through eternity! Now this, so far from proving 
universal salvation, squints awfully towards universal dam- 
nation! But let us extend this argument : We were told 
that God is good to all in this life, even to the evil and un- 
thankful; but why infer hence that he will ma&e all holy 
and happy in heaven? Is not the legitimate inference from 
the premises, that he will make all holy and happy in this 
world? Why does his goodness not operate to their holi- 
ness and salvation here, seeing that Upiversalism asserts 
that all salvation is confined to this world? It is a mon- 
strous deduction to conclude from a goodness and love 
which permit sin and misery in this world, that there will 
be none in the next. The premises and the conclusions 
are wide as the poles asunder. Or is it contended that God, 
on account of his cruelty in/ permitting sin and sorrow 
here, will change and not permit them to exist hereafter? 
Oh no! for it is asserted that he is unchangeable! Very 



84 



DEBATE ON 



well; the goodness that permits sin and misery in time, be- 
ing unchangeable, must permit it through eternity! The 
gentleman is buried in the ruins of his own castle. And 
yet you are boastingly told by the gentleman that he esta- 
blished this position by arguments that had not and could 
not be met! 

His second argument, founded upon Romans viii. 19 — 23, 
is of a piece with the last ; it proves too much for him,, as 
we shall see. I need not recapitulate what I have already 
said. Permit me, however, to pause a moment, to remarks 
that I suspect Mr. Pingree has misrepresented Mr. Wesley, 
Here are Wesley's Notes on the New Testament, and he 
does not say that the word " creature" or " creation'' 
means the brutes. I suppose Mr. Pingree never saw this, 
work. Mr. Wesley, in his comment upon this passage 
makes no such application of the word as the gentleman 
has imputed to him. 

Mr. Pingree. He says it elsewhere. 

Mr. Waller. I have no other of Wesley's works at 
hand. He does not say it in this work; and if he says it 
in any work, the gentleman certainly owes it to himself to 
make it appear. I hope he will relieve himself from the 
suspicion of misrepresenting a man, because he has not 
read his writings. But to proceed. 

Now the argument on this passage in Romans turns 
upon the meaning as here used of the word " creature," 
or " creation." The word itself and alone may just as well 
mean brutes as men, and frogs as angels. The word, then, 
must be limited to suit the context. The gentleman him- 
self has limited it, as I showed on yesterday ; and limited 
it just to suit his purposes. He is anxious to include in it 
all mankind, and especially the ungodly and the sinners. 
Let us then examine the context. The Apostle commences 
the chapter by telling us, that there is " now no condem- 
nation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not 
after the flesh, but after the spirit." He does not mean 
that there is now no condemnation to any. For he says,, 
verse viii., etc. " So then they that are in the flesh cannot 
please God : but ye [believers, not all mankind] are not in 
the flesh, but in the spirit, ; .f so be the spirit of God dwell 
in you. Now, if any man have not the spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is 
dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of 



TJ ft I V E E S A L I S M . 



85 



Righteousness. ***** The spirit itself beareth wit- 
ness with our spirit, that we [believers] are the children 
of God; and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and 
joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, 
that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon 
that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to 
be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in 
us," [believers.] And then follows the passage in contro- 
versy. Now who was the Apostle talking about? Not 
angels, nor brutes, nor stocks, nor stones; not drunkards, 
nor liars, nor murderers, nor thieves, nor robbers; but 
believers, who walked not after the flesh, but after the 
spirit. If Mr. Pingree must include the murderer, the 
drunkard, and all liars, I shall insist too that he take with 
his cargo, the brutes, and all things else that have been 
made. The Apostle, and not Mr. Pingree, the context and 
not Universalism, must make the limitation. In the imme- 
diate context we find nothing more said of the unbelievers 
and the ungodly, than we do of the beasts of the field and 
the fowls of the air : and if one must be included, so must 
the other. 

But how can he possibly include all mankind in this term 
as it stands connected? Will he affirm that infants and 
idiots are earnestly expecting and waiting for the mani- 
festation of the sons of God? Dare he affirm that this is 
true of the heathen, who know nothing of the matter? 
That it is true of the atheist who denies the existence of 
God, and affirms that death is an eternal sleep? Or will he 
even say that this is true of unconverted men 1 I de- 
mand an answer to these questions. I invite him to haz- 
ard, if he dares, his reputation for critical acumen, I 
almost said, for common sense, by assuming such positions 
before this audience. He will not do it. Mark the pre- 
diction. 

His third argument was derived from Romans the 5th. 
Now read that chapter. The Apostle is proving that the 
righteous shall be saved through Jesus Christ. That 
" they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of 
righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" — 
that " even so might grace reign through righteousness 
unto eternal life." Now in the face of these plain declar- 
ations, Mr. Pingree affirms the salvation of the unright- 
eous? Does the Apostle here, or anywhere else say, that 



86 



DEBATE ON' 



the unrighteous shall have eternal life? What man has even* 
lasting life? Let the Bible answer: " He that believeth on 
the son hath everlasting life?" Aye, more; we are told, also. 
" He that believeth not the son, shall not see life, but the 
Wrath of God abideth on him." But Mr. Pingree contra- 
dicts this, and proves the salvation of unbelievers and the 
unrighteous, by a passage which affirms the salvation of the 
righteous!! 

He next attempted to derive an argument from Colos- 
sians i. 20. I will read the passage in its connection : 
" For it pleaseth the Father that in him should all fulness 
dwell; and having made peace, through the blood of his 
cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, 
I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 
And you, that were some time alienated, and enemies in 
your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, 
in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy 
and unblameable in his sight, if you continue in the faith 
grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the 
hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard," etc. Now the 
only possible reason why this passage should have been 
quoted, was in consequence of its using the phrase " all 
things;" or rather, simply because the word "all" occurs 
in it as well as in the question in debate. I can conceive 
of no other reason. The Colossians were reconciled in 
this life— all the reconciliation that takes place between 
man and God, that the Scriptures know anything about, 
takes place in this life. Perhaps Mr. Pingree is ready to 
take the ground, that unbelievers, and drunkards, and 
atheists; in a word, all mankind, in this life, are in a state 
of reconciliation with God! If so, why does he mince the 
matter? Why does he not speak out? If he will not 
speak out, or if he does not believe this, but holds that 
such persons dying, leave the world in a state of irrecon- 
ciliation, then let him point to the passage which mentions 
the reconciliation that takes place in hades! — of the 
" work and the device" by which it is brought about in the 
grave. If he will not condescend to tell us how men are 
reconciled after they die, (and I suppose of course he will 
not,) surely he will so far stoop from his lofty elevation 
as to tell us, at least, where he obtained his information 
that any were reconciled after death. Such knowledge 
cannot be derived from the word of God. The Nauvoo 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



87 



prophet professes to believe such a doctrine; but as im- 
pudent as he is, he has not the effrontery to profess to 
derive it from the Bible. No; he claims to have learned 
it by special revelation ! Has Mr. Pingree had a vision? 
Has he been caught up to the third heavens '? Has he 
been sent to utter oracles? Unless he has, he cannot per- 
suade us to believe that those who die impenitent and in 
their sins, are reconciled, without faith, or repentance, or 
even hearing the Gospel, in the grave. 

Thus far the gentleman has progressed. Upon such 
"pillars" he proposes to rear his system! He has as yet 
quoted no passage in which he professes to find his doc- 
trine, except by inference; and I have shown you it is not 
to be found even then. 

In his last speech, Mr. Pingree told us that he did not 
believe that salvation was confined to this life, and also 
that there was no punishment in the next life. He has, 
hitherto, time and again, endorsed the position that every 
sin meets a full and adequate punishment Now here is 
his dilemma : He has to contradict his standard writers 
and say that all salvation is not in this life, because he 
wants to save those who die in their sins : but now he says 
there is no future punishment, and consequently men are 
not punished at all for those sins in which they die, al- 
though he has contended, with the zeal of martyrdom, 
that every sin is fully and adequately punished ! Really, 
he can run across his own track with a facility perfectly 
astounding. But if there is no punishment after death, 
there can be no sin after death, Mr. Pingree and Univer- 
salism being witnesses, for punishment necessarily follows 
sin; and if there is neither sin nor punishment after 
death, in the name of common sense, how can there be 
any salvation ? Did he not tell us, that salvation was from 
sin . It is astonishing that a disputant so adroit, should 
run into so many absurdities and contradictions. It is the 
cause and not the advocate which is at fault. 

But he told you with as much coolness as if he supposed 
you could believe him, that I had made no appeal to the 
Scripture, but only to the opinions of men — to the mass 
of mankind Now, I have quoted at least two passages of 
Scriptures to his one, as you all know; and if time will al- 
low, I shall quote one hundred to his one. The fact that he 
made such a declaration shows that he is reduced to great 



DEBATE ON 



extremities, and does ne'e know what to say or do. But this 
is merely by the way, and as another proof of the desper- 
ate condition of my friend's affairs. 

But the gentleman still insists that Ballou and his fol- 
lowers are endowed with capacities to perceive the truth, 
beyond all the wise, and learned, and pious men that ever 
existed before them! That with no more evidence than 
others possessed, with no greater amount of mental cul- 
ture, with no greater stimulus to investigation, they nev- 
ertheless have mounted immeasurably higher in the 
regions of light and truth than ever did the boldest ad- 
venturer in all past ages! And it would seem that he sets 
up these high claims too with the greatest modesty, and 
in the utmost abhorrence of the folly of one's being 
" wise in his own conceit I !" But I will not trespass again 
upon your patience to explain my position in reference to 
the decision of the learned and pious of past ages, against 
Universalism. Mr. Pingree either finds it convenient not 
to understand me, or else he cannot. He has not met my 
argument on that point. It would be folly for me to press 
it further on him. I grant that Christians professedly 
have been and are divided in sentiment, and that too on 
some important points; but now nor never were they di- 
vided on so important and vital a question as this. The 
reason of the division has been that lack of information 
requisite to comprehend the matter, and the prevalence of 
a spirit hostile to free and dispassionate investigation. 
But nothing of the kind ever pertained in relation to this 
subject. The only way we can account for their unani- 
mous rejection of it, is to be ascribed to a deliberate con- 
spiracy against the truth ! No other explanation can be 
given. But I have hitherto said enough on this question. 

But my friend seems to think he will not always be in 
the minority. That wonderful sagacity of intellect, which 
he has in common with his "father Ballou," has all of a 
sudden imparted to him a seer's optics; and he has cast his 
eyes through the darkness of the future, and has descried 
the brightness of the day when Universalism shall possess 
the earth, and shed its mellow influences in all hearts !. I 
am sorry he got off the tripod before he uttered all his 
oracle ! He ought to have told us the times and the sea- 
sons, aye, "the day and the hour;" for surely that was 
no ordinary revelation he had — the oracular injlatus was. 



UNI VERSALISM. 



very great! But, indeed, that glorious event, he intimated, 
was close at hand; for he dro.pt the hint that I might live 
to see it. I do not suppose that he thought me likely to 
be blessed with antideluvian longevity. My impaired 
health and shattered constitution would forbid such a sup- 
position. No, the time is at hand surely. It will doubt- 
less be coeval with Miller's conflagration, and the Mor- 
mon millennium. Oh, how the world will be amazed, 
when such a trio of glorious events shall burst at once 
upon its vision ! 

By the same gift of second sight — that gift of the re- 
doubtable McFingal, which enabled him to see what could 
not be seen, — I say, I presume it was by some such aid, 
that Mr. Pingree was enabled to see seven hundred thous- 
and Universalists in the United States ! But he must par- 
don me if I am less credulous in relation to this part of 
his oracle, than the rest. I am willing to grant that, 
should my life be spared to see the Universalist millenium, 
that it is highly probable I will be a Universalist; but 
really I cannot believe this seven hundred thousand story, 
until I see it made out by figures. I demand the statistics. 
He ought not to settle such a matter by oracle. No, we 
must have the figures — they cannot lie. 

In due time, 1 will attend to the words in the original 
language, translated hell, in the common version. I pass 
them and what the gentlemen said in relation to them, for 
the present. 

He says, that Origen, and before him, Clement, Grego- 
ry Nazianzen, etc., used the word aionios, in reference to 
punishment, in a limited sense; not as meaning endless. 
I will give him a premium to make that statement good by 
quotations from those authors. They do no such thing. 
All the writings of the 44 fathers" may be seen in the li- 
brary of Lane Seminary, Cincinnati; and 1 defy him to 
prove that this word was so used by any of them ; or that 
Origen ever attempted to prove his peculiar notions from 
the Bible. 

Nor is it true, that no one until Tertullian asserted end- 
less punishment. The Apostolic fathers asserted it. Ire- 
nseus says, the whole church of the second century assert- 
ed it. These works are here, and the gentleman is wel- 
come to consult them. But I do not believe he will ven- 
ture to dispute what I say. Indeed, the passage he pro- 



90 



DEBATE ON 



fessed to quote from Tertullian, to say the least, if in the 
writings of that father at all, has been very freely trans- 
lated for the gentleman's use. I have read the works of 
Tertullian, but I do not recollect the passage as it was 
quoted. But admitting it, it proves nothing whatever, 
further than that Tertullian, as was his custom, carried a 
doctrine universally received, to an unnecessary extent. 

The gentleman has the most fruitful of fancies. Its 
creations are most marvelous, — I had almost said most 
ridiculous ! He was almost ready to assert that his "fa- 
ther Ballou" was the apocalyptic angel, flying through the 
midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach! 
And indeed, he did affirm, that Ballou's reformation was 
greater than that of Luther's ! ! No marvel that you 
smile. For myself I am firmly persuaded that if any 
thing prophetic was ever recorded of Mr. Ballou, it was a 
prediction of one of the Mahometan seers, to the effect 
that antichrist was a huge donkey, which should appear in 
the latter days, and attract millions to perdition by the 
music of his braying! But notwithstanding he one minute 
thus clothes his spiritual father in robes of glory, he the 
next minute* with paracidal ferocity, would tear them from 
him: for he asserts that Universalism did exist prior to 1818, 
when it came forth from the prolific sconce of Mr. Ballou, 
as erst of old did the goddess of wisdom from the brains of 
Jupiter! But Mr. Pingree should not do so. The disci- 
ple is not above his master, nor the servant above his 
lord. He is wrong in spirit and in fact. In spirit, because 
he is wholly indebted for his present commanding position 
in the religious world to that man whom he would thus 
rob of his honor — he is a consequence of Mr. Ballou. In 
fact, because he has been wholly unable, although chal- 
lenged to do so, to adduce a solitary individual who tra- 
versed the road of Universalism before the said Hosea 
Ballou. But to come to more grave matters. 

He charges that I hold that unbelievers will be saved — 
that I preach to them for that purpose, — that I hold that 
murderers will be saved, etc. Now to all this I give a 
most emphatic denial. I do not teach that an unbeliever 
will be saved; nor would 1 tell one so for my right arm. 
Nor am I wont to contradict the Bible, and tell a murderer 
that he hath eternal life abiding in him, when God declares 
he has not. I am not wont to cry, " peace, peace," to the 



UNIVERSALIS Mt 



91 



wicked, when the Almighty has ^declared there is no peace 
to the wicked. I will net, as do Universalist ministers, 
hold out the prospect of eternal felicity to the drunkard, 
the liar, the swearer; the man polluted with every vice 
and stained with every crime, when the voice of heaven 
declares that such " shall not inherit the kingdom of God." 
No, I teach that the believer, and not the unbeliever 
" hath everlasting life." I say to the poor in spirit, that 
"theirs is the kingdom of heaven:" to mourners, that 
"they shall be comforted;" to the meek, that "they shall 
inherit the earth;" to those that hunger and thirst after 
righteousness, that "they shall be filled;" to the merciful, 
that " they shall obtain mercy;" to the pure in heart, that 
" they shall see God." I say to those who are led by the 
spirit of God, that "they are the sons of God." And in 
so doing I speak as He, by whose authority I profess to 
preach, authorizes me to speak. But never, no never, will 
i proclaim peace and safety to the sinner. I tell the un- 
believers that " the wrath of God abideth on them" — that 
" without faith it is impossible to please God." That they 
must repent or perish — turn or burn. That to be car- 
nally minded is death — that they that are in the flesh can- 
not please God — that "the fearful, and unbelieving, and 
the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and 
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in 
the lake which burnetii with fire and brimstone; which is the 
second death." No, I do not preach peace to the ungodly 
and the sinner. Mr. Pingree wholly misunderstands me. 

But I do hold to the transforming influences of the Gos- 
pel. I do teach that by the grace and spirit of God, men 
are "born again" — that they become new "creatures;" 
that " old things pass away, and all things become new." 
That by this new creating process, I teach that unbelievers 
become believers, sinners become saints, that children of 
the devil become children of God, slaves of the wicked 
one become Christ's freemen, drunkards become temperate 
in all things, etc. But my Bible teaches that these oppo- 
site characters are different moral beings — that they are 
not the same, not what they once were : that they are new 
creatures — that they have passed from death unto life 
— that they are born again. This is the genius of the 
Christian religion — it changes, remodels men, creates 
them anew in Christ— they are washed and justified : but 



DEBATE ON 



it takes no murderers, or liars, or drunkards, etc. into hea- 
ven. None but the spirits of the just are in heaven; no- 
thing unclean can enter there. But why enlarge on a 
point so plain. I hardly think it possible that Universal- 
ism itself can blind the eyes of any to this subject. 

But Mr. Pingree will tell you that hs subscribes to this 
doctrine — that he holds that no man is saved in unbelief— 
that he must become a believer first — that the murderer, 
etc., must be changed. But when is the change effected? 
In many instances, he will tell you, not in this life — con- 
sequently not by the Gospel, not by the spirit of God. 
The man dying in unbelief, according to his theory, be- 
comes a believer in the grave! He believes without hear- 
ing ! ! The murderer's heart is transformed, without the 
influence of the spirit of grace, in the grave! Let us 
trace this absurdity further. The Gospel is preached to 
men, and they reject it. God calls, but they refuse. He 
stretches out his hand all the day long, and no man re- 
gards it. They die impenitent, unbelievers, atheists, in- 
fidels, blasphemers, foul with every sin : and yet in the 
grave, without hearing, they believe : the atheist gives 
his heart to God, the infidel embraces the Gospel, the 
blasphemer chants the praises of Jesus, and every sin is 
washed from the soul without the blood of Christ, without 
the spirit of God ! ! How ? Mr. Pingree says he cannot tell ! 
that he is not bound to tell ! But who informed him it was 
so at all? He has quoted nothing from the Scriptures to 
prove it. Common sense startles at it. I again call for 
the proof to authorize the supposition of the existence of 
absurdities so monstrous and nonsensical. Let him make 
good his implied superiority in knowledge respecting the 
affairs of the spirit-land. 

There was a passage quoted by the gentleman in his last 
speech, and it is quite a favorite among Universalists, 
which demands a passing notice, if for no other reason, to 
show the sandy foundation upon which this system rests. 
The passage alluded to is Proverbs xi. 31: "Behold the 
righteous man, shall he not be recompensed in the earth? 
much more the wicked and the sinner." So it was quoted 
by Mr. Pingree, and so it reads in the common version. 
It is in the mouth of every Universalist, to prove that 
there is not a state of rewards and punishments in another 
life. But this is a wrong translation. It is rendered in 



UNIVERSALISM. 



93 



the Septuagint, " If the righteous scarcely be saved, where 
shall the ungodly and the sinner appear." That this is a 
correct rendering, is evident from the fact, that the Apos- 
tle Peter, by inspiration, quotes it, 1 Peter iv. 18. This 
quotation, by Peter, gives divine sanction to the rendering 
of this passage in the Septuagint, and dashes this delicious 
cup forever from the lips of Universalists. 

Mr. Pingree, in order to show that sin was fully punish- 
ed in this life, quotes Hebrews ii. 2, 3: " For if the word 
spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression 
and disobedience received a just recompence of reward, 
how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation]" etc. 
Now this was quoted to show that when a murderer and 
other criminals were punished under the Mosaic law, it was 
a " just recompence of reward," and, therefore, all the 
punishment they would receive. Now a thing is just which 
is done according to an equitable law. Hence, the mur- 
derer was justly punishable with death; that is, suffered 
according to law. This is all the passage means. But 
this was a law of human society; it could neither annul 
or supercede a divine law, under which he might also 
justly suffer. The parallel passage ought to have been 
taken in connection with this : Hebrews x. 28, 29, "He 
that despised Moses' law, died without mercy, under two or 
three witnesses : of how much sorer punishment, suppose 
ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under 
foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the 
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, 
and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" Here 
then is a punishment much sorer than to die without mercy, 
threatened those who despise the Gospel — much sorer than 
the worst punishment inflicted by the Mosaic law; can 
such a punishment be inflicted in this life? If so, what can 
it be? How can it be inflicted? 

There was another singular position assumed by my 
opponent, which I will just state. It is one of those ar- 
guments with which his speeches abound, that cannot be 
answered. If I understood him, he contended that the suf- 
ferings experienced by the righteous here were somehow 
or other conducive to their happiness in this life! And 
that the happiness of the wicked in this life, was no happi- 
ness at all, but punishment! 1 merely state the matter as 
I understood him, and frankly confess I have no answer to 
give to such argumentation. 



94 



DEBATE ON 



I come now to notice his fifth argument. This was 
founded on 1 Tim. ii. 4, (if I did not mistake his reference,) 
" Who will have all men to be saved, and come to the 
knowledge of the truth." Well, Universalism asserts 
that " the evils from which Christ came to save men are in 
this world;" and Mr. Pingree tells us that salvation is from 
sin. Then this passage means, that God "would have all 
men to be saved" from sin in this world, " and come to the 
knowledge of the truth." And Mr. Pingree says that 
God's will cannot be frustrated, and, therefore, we must 
conclude, although every thing gives the lie to the conclu- 
sion, that all men are saved from sin in this life, and come 
to the knowledge of the truth ! ! Universalism must be one 
of the " lying wonders," mentioned in prophecy. 

But he quoted in confirmation of this position, 1 Tim. i\\. 
10 : " We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all 
men, especially of those that believe." Here is a book 
called " Exjjosition of Universalism" by "Rev. I. D. Wil- 
liamson;" and in it is a sermon on this very text, p. 155. 
In this sermon, he proves, in strict accordance with his 
system, as I have already shown, that this special salvation 
takes place in this life. He says, " 1. The believer is 
saved from sin, the direst foe of man. 2. The believer is 
saved from ignorance of God and his character. And 
3rd. The believer is saved from the bondage of the fear of 
death." The especial salvation is in this world, where 
then must the common salvation be 1 The great salvation 
of the text, the Universalists tell us, is in this life; and 
then leave us to infer, and marvel that we do not infer, 
that the less salvation is in the life to come! The believer 
is saved in this world, and the unbeliever in the world to 
come! Such an exposition is worthy only of the lunatic 
asylum. But so Universalism expounds me word of God. 

[mr. pingree's fifth speech.] 
Respected Friends: — You will permit me to make one 
remark, — and I am grateful to the Moderators for calling 
attention to it, — respecting the gentleman's quotations from 
the poets — " a little learning is a dangerous thing," etc., 
which he says he had no intention to apply to me. If he 
did not intend them to apply to me, I should like to know 
their relevancy to the present discussion. What have 
such quotations to do with the question, " Do the Scriptures 
teach the ultimate holiness and salvation of all men?" — 



"UNIVERSALIS M. 



95 



whether all men shall be holy and happy; or some howl in 
endless despair? 

Mr. Waller says that according to Universalism, there is 
no goodness in God, because he punishes the sinner accord- 
ing to what he deserves. Parents! is there no goodness in 
you, if you punish your children according to what they 
deserve? Wherein is there a want of goodness in a parent 
who punishes children as they deserve, and for their own 
benefit? That God punishes sinners as they deserve, is not 
denied; but it is denied that he punishes them endlessly 
hereafter, for the transgressions of this life. That is Mr. 
Waller's doctrine; not mine. I say there is goodness in 
punishing the sinner, to reform and benefit him. But 
where is the goodness of God upon the theory of the gen- 
tleman? Is there goodness exhibited in torturing men to 
all eternity, and in incapacitating them from all repent- 
ance hereafter! There is goodness in a parent who pun- 
ishes his child to improve his character. It may be done 
with all the kindness of a father, in a spirit of love, for the 
good of the child. But if he should torture him in a 
cruel manner, and to gratify a malignant nature, we may 
say he is not good. By adopting the latter as the conduct 
of God, we impeach him with an act which we would not 
permit a man to do. We cannot believe it is consistent with 
the nature of God to do an act we should attribute to the 
gratification of a revengeful spirit. But as to limited pun- 
ishment, for the benefit and improvement and ultimate hap- 
piness of the sufferer; this we say is good; and we see 
in it the work of a Heavenly Father. This is all we say: 
and all it is necessary to say as to that argument. Espe- 
cially with reference to the idea of the gentleman, that for 
the sins committed in this life the punishment is unlimited, 
endless, not for the reformation of sinners, but for ven- 
geance only, and that consequently God's creatures are 
delivered at once and finally to the power of the Devil, to 
be tortured in eternal fire, with the power of repentance 
taken from them by their Creator; and this I suppose the 
gentleman claims to be the height of goodness! This is the 
perfection of Benevolence in the Heavenly Father of our 
Spirits, and the God of all grace and mercy ! ! whose very 
nature and essence is Love ! ! That is logic; is it? That 
is logic worthy of a man who appeals to majorities in such 
discussions, and to the *• mass of well regulated minds ! " 



36 



DEBATE ON 



Let us pass on. We hear next the inquiry, if God is so 
good as to save all, why does he not save them now? God 
knows; I do not. There is sufficient testimony that we 
were made and are now " subject to vanity," in this world. 
If the gentleman wants to know why, he must ask not men, 
nor angels; he must ask the Being that made us so. I 
have shown from the Bible that we "shall be delivered 
from the bondage of corruption." All I can say as to the 
rest, is that God so designed it, that we should be subject 
to vanity; for what object, He only knows. We must not 
" be wise above what is written." The declaration is as 
plain as the Word of God can make it, and as written in 
human language. 

The gentleman says that the works of Wesley do not 
contain the statement that the word "creature," (Romans 
8th.) is applied to the brute creation. The declaration was 
taken from a sermon of Wesley, and not from his Notes. 
If any individual here has Wesley's Sermons, I should like 
to see them. The sermon I think was on that text. 

Let us read what he says here, in his Notes. He quotes 
the passage: "For the earnest expectation of the creature 
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." It in- 
cludes all the visible creation. Believers are expressly 
spoken of apart, (and " not they only but ourselves also,") 
yet embraced in it. It is like a passage in John (1 John ii. 
2.) " And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for 
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Here 
" the world" is distinguished from " ourselves," and sepa- 
rated, yet, though a special notice is taken of "ourselves," 
the whole world is embraced afterwards in the propitiation. 
Should we believe that because believers are specially no- 
ticed, that there is any exception meant either in favor of 
or against them? I now read from Wesley: 

"19. For the earnest expectation — The word denotes a 
lively hope of something drawing near, and a vehement 
longing after it; of the creation — Of all visible creatures, 
(believers excepted, who are spoken of apart.) Each kind, 
according as it is capable. All these have been sufferers 
through sin. And to all these (the finally impenitent ex- 
cepted" — 

Do we find that exception in the Bible? the passage it- 
self (15th Corinthians,) makes no such exception; and none 
can be allowed. But let us read on: — " shall refreshment 



UNIVERSALISM. 



redound from the glory of the children of God. Upright 
heathens are by no means to be excluded from this earnest 
expectation. Nay, perhaps something of it may at some 
times be found even in the vainest of men; who (although 
in the hurry of life they mistake vanity for liberty, and 
partly stifle, partly dissemble their groans, yet) in their 
sober, quiet, sleepless, afflicted hours, pour forth many sighs 
in the ear of God." 

" 20. The cr.ation was made subject to vanity — Abuse, 
misery, and corruption, by him who subjected it — Namely., 
God, Gen. iii. 17; v. 29. Adam only made it liable to tho 
sentence which God pronounced; yet not without hope." 

"21. The creation itself shall be delivered — Destruction 
is not deliverance. Therefore whatsoever is destroyed, or 
ceases to be, is not delivered at all. Will then any part of 
the creation be destroyed] Int> the glorious liberty — The 
excellent state wherein they were created." 

Thus we see he embraces all creation in a strict sense. 
I spoke of the word "creation" as meaning the human 
ere iti n. But if my friend includes stocks and stones, I 
have no objection. But I do not ask it. 1 ask only so 
much of creation as is properly "subject to vanity, and to 
be delivered from the bondage of corruption," etc. 

He attempted to show that Christians alone are spoken 
of in Romans viii. He read the preceding context, where 
the Apostle speaks of " you," and "we," addressing the 
Roman Christians who were then living, and actually enjoy- 
ing, in part, that condition of salvation which is afterwards 
spoken of as the promised gift to the whole creation. Mr. 
Waller wishes to make it appear that the whole chapter 
relates to the Roman Christians, to whom he was writing. 
If this were so, literally, what would become of my friend, 
or any of us living now, and in this place? Why, no man 
now living has any thing to do with this promise of Scrip- 
ture, if it was meant to be con lined to Roman Christians 
then 'living, whom he addressed. The true explanation is, 
that in one part, he is addressing ihein, and in another 
part he is speaking of the whole human creation, as destin- 
ed to be "delivered." The righteous are spoken of in a 
peculiar manner, as worthy of notice; but all are embraced, 
as experiencing the ultimate deliverance. 

He says 1 made an argument in favor of universal sal- 
vation from a passage which expressly states that men are 



/ 



DEBATE OH 



only saved " through righteousness" — and that we say 
therefore that men are saved while unrighteous— Not so, 
I said on Paul's authority that men will "be made right- 
eous, and thus saved. That they will, is proved by the 
passage I relied on; for it says, as I showed before, that all 
will become righteous, through tne obedience of Jesus 
Christ. I do not believe I made any such argument as he 
attributes to me. I certainly did not use the passage in the 
sense he now charges. He foists a passage and argument 
upon me, which I never used, and thus attempts to lead you 
astray. I did not found any argument on that verse. 

He asks whether all men are saved in this life? No; all 
know they are not; nor have I argued thus, 

With respect to the passage I read, (Colossians i. 20,) 
"by him to reconcile all things to himself," he says this 
was addressed to the Colossians; and they were reconciled 
already. Now if this be the case literally, no man can 
claim this promise as applying to himself. Where is his 
reconciliation, (pointing to Mr. Waller;) and where is the 
reconciliation of all the Baptists now living, if the " recon - 
ciliation" concerned the Colossian Christians alone? And 
if not them exclusively, Mr. Waller's objection is force- 
less. The Colossians were reconciled, it is true; but the 
promise of reconciliation applies to us too, and to all men. 
Does he not see that all these things are done now, as well 
as then; and that this, according to his argument in reply 
to mine, is a direct contradiction of the promises of Al- 
mighty God? The language and expression of the promises' 
forbid their exclusive application to the individual Christians 
then living, to whom they were addressed; and show them 
to apply to the ultimate condition of all mankind. The 
Colossians were reconciled already — but all men were to be 
reconciled, finally. Christ is to reconcile the whole world 
to God. 

He says if God is good enough to make all righteous 
and happy in a future world, he would do it now. I deny 
it. Noiv, we are "subject to vanity." That is God's will 
now. That is our present condition. The righteous suffer 
now in consequence of the violation of his laws. No man 
would violate them, or suffer from their violation by oth- 
ers,except by the peculiar social condition of the human race 
and being " made subject to vanity." If there is " vanity" 
hereafter, then there will be suffering. Man is made sub- 



V N I V E R S A L I S M . 



99 



ject to vanity here. It is so arranged under the Divine 
Government, for great and glorious ends to human beings. 
Why and how it occurred, we are entirely ignorant. None 
* can find out God to perfection." 

My friend asks, if there is no punishment after death, 
what are men saved from? They are saved from "vanity," 
and " the bondage of corruption," and sin, and death. 

He says he can boast of having quoted six more texts 
than I have. He may easily read a string of six or eight 
passages, or sixty even, as he does, without showing how 
they bear on the discussion, as he required me to do. \ 
quote a few passages at a time, and show their bearing 
upon the subject. 

He says that Hosea Ballou was " wise in his own conceit;" 
and talks about the great wonder and marvelous thing, 
that he should have been the first to discover what is so 
plainly revealed in Scripture, etc. The time will come 
when justice will be done to that great and good man. If 
he were here, doubtless he could speak for himself; — but 
he is not here, and Mr. Waller shows himself a brave war- 
rior by contending with an absent combatant! Perhaps he 
had better attend to my arguments, in this discussion, and 
save Father Ballou's until another time. This course 
would be more satisfactory to me, and to this audience. 

I did not bring a load of books here to refer to, because 
I thought the appeal was not to 44 authority," but the words 
of Scripture. I may have * 4 little learning," it is true; but 
I have enough to read the Divine Word, and attempt to 
present its teachings to men. 

The Apostolic fathers did not all use the word " eternal." 
to signify endless, in our sense of that word. Clement 
did not use it so; and the farther back we go towards the 
sacred writers, we find less use made of it in that sense; 
till we come to the Apostles, and find that none of them 
used it so. But as we come down in the history of the church 
to the more corrupt times of Christianity, we find reli- 
gion filled with absurd, monkish, and false ideas; and so 
down to modern Partialism, as it prevails in the present 
day. 

I gave you an example of some of the writings attribu- 
ted to the fathers. Mosheim says that many absurd wri- 
tings were attributed to the fathers; but there isno absolute 
proof that they were written by them. 

That, however, is not the question. It has nothing to do 



100 



DEBATE ON 



with the question, " Do the Sckiptures teach the ultimate 
holiness and salvation of all men?" If we were to appeal to 
human authority, we should go to the Mother Church, and 
obey her, and die in her communion. 1 have read Euse- 
bius* history of the Church in the first three centuries; 
and this ancient Christian, in speaking of the persecution 
of the saints and of the punishment of those who persecu- 
ted them, does not once speak of misery and torment in the 
life to come: and Eusebius lived back near to the time of 
the Apostolic fathers. 

" I affirm that no murderer and no liar can he saved,''' says 
Mr. Waller. Was not David a murderer? and was he not 
saved? Peter lied, denying his Lord and Master, with 
cursing and swearing: was Peter not saved? "Oh! but 
those who die unbelievers cannot be saved." Where does 
the Bible say that those who die murderers, liars, etc., can- 
not be saved? "But the Bible says no murderer hath 
eternal life." It does not say that after death the murderer 
may not have eternal life. 

There is one thought which I wish to express here. It 
is the common belief among the Orthodox, that the eternal 
condition of men depends upon the state of mind and heart 
when /hey die. Yet they are always quoting the Bible to 
prove that men are recompensed 4 according 'o their works.'''' 
They themselves do not believe it; I charge them with not be- 
lieving that men are recompensed "according to their works." 
They believe that a man may be wicked, and do all the 
woiks of the devil, during life, and until the hour of death, 
aud thsn repent, and go to heaven. Is there any recom- 
pense to this man according to his works? And on the 
other hand, they believe that a man may be good, and do 
the works of godliness during his whole life, almost, and 
then die in sin, and go to an everlasting Hell, without hope 
of i epentance or salvation. Is this man recompensed " ac- 
cording to his works?" I repeat, then, that they do not be- 
lieve that men are rewarded and punished " according to 
their works.'* 

What does salvation depend upon? The state of the mind 
at death? The Scriptures do not teach that. They teach that 
our reward depends on our works; and that for every sin 
done we are punished. But we deny that this punishment 
is Cor all eternity. We believe men are punished accord- 
ing to their works, and that salvation is the gift of God t 
in another life. They affirm that it depends uj.on the 



TTNI VERS A LI S M. 



101 



state of the mind and heart at death. The word of God 
does not affirm this. 

To affirm that unbelievers can never be saved, would be 
to sweep the whole entire race of man with the besom of 
eternal destruction into the pit of Hell! The mass of men 
die unbelievers ; and all men were mice unbelievers. There 
is but a small company of believers in the Christian Reli- 
gion, compared to the whole human race. The whole Pa- 
gan world who have lived in all time, must be sent to eter- 
nal perdition! Do you believe that? Not only the whole 
Pagan world; but I should like to know what is to be the 
fate of idiots, infants, etc.? Will the gentleman set this 
argument aside, by saying that we have nothing to do with 
the fate of such persons? Nothing to do with it!? No con- 
cern of ours?! I do not profess to be guided by such views 
and feelings, I am interested in the whole human family, 
as a common brotherhood of the children of God; and if 
they are unbelievers here, in that they are " made subject 
to vanity," I believe that God has better things in store for 
them at the resurrection hereafter. I believe the Scrip- 
tures to teach that there is deliverance for them hereafter 
from the " bondage of corruption." 

He says it does not follow that a man once a liar is al- 
ways a liar; once a murderer always a murderer, etc. 
That's what we claim. We say they will be changed. They 
will become not liars — not murderers; and will be saved. 
That is the promise. He has admitted the very point. The 
passages he quoted to show they could not be saved, have 
no bearing at all. Because he admits that some murderers, 
liars, etc., (not those who die so,) can be saved. And we 
say all can be, by the same grace, and by being changed. 

He says I must tell where the salvation takes effect, etc. 
He is troubled about where men are saved. Are they saved 
in Hell? he asks. Where are they saved? etc. Does not 
the gentlemen believe in a judgment in the life to come? 
When is that to be? at the Resurrection? When is that to 
be? When the gentleman tells me, then 1 will tell him 
where and when all men are to be reconciled and saved. 
But this is a question not in the proposition before us. The 
Bible does not tell us when or where men are to be recon- 
ciled and saved: though we may yet, when we come to the 
proper passage, sec some signs there of the time. 

My friend, Mr. Waller, has explained himself on the sub- 



DEBATE ON 



ject of sin not punishing itself. He does not contend so. 
Their " own wickedness sometimes does correct them." 
The cases he referred to are punishments in this life. As 
to the expression I quoted from Proverbs, and its affirmed 
parallel in Peter; take the passage as quoted in Peter: 
will the gentlemen explain where it is that " the righteous 
are scarcely saved?" Is that in a future life? Dr. Adam 
Clarke says it relates to temporal matters. Thus, " where 
shall the ungodly be if the righteous are scarcely saved?" 
refers to another kind of salvation, than the final salva- 
tion. Either passage is sufficiently to the point, in proving 
present punishment. 

The passage in 2d Hebrews, he says, referred to the 
Mosaic dispensation. It is granted a "just recompense" 
was received then. I wonder if Mr. Waller believes that 
under the Mosaic dispensation no man expected to be ame- 
nable to endless future 'punishment? This seems to be the 
admission. I should like to know. If it were so, and they 
endured it, what shall we do with this passage, "received a 
just recompense,*' as applied to the Mosaic dispensation? 
and if they did not expect to endure endless future pun- 
ishment, what did men gain by Christianity? The knowl- 
edge and expectation of being consigned to " all hell-hor- 
rors" in a future life forever?! Glorious Gospel this! a 
glorious "life and immortality" it has brought to light; 
has it not?! "Life and immortality are brought to light by 
the Gospel," say the Scriptures. "Life and endless damna- 
tion," say the modern theologists. 

The gentleman quotes, " how much sorer punishment 
shall they endure," etc.? Yes, if they were to suffer 
through life and death, and after death hell-horrors to all 
eternity, for the sins committed in life! Christianity was a 
curse, an everlasting curse to the human race, if such be 
Christianity, and if men did not expect endless suffering 
under the Mosaic dispensation, but expected it under the 
Christian. I say if this be the change effected by Christi- 
anity — to expose mankind to endless suffering in Hell fire, 
(and the mass of men will certainly go thither, upon the 
doctrine as now advocated) it is a horrible curse to human' 
souls! But perhaps he may think it is no sorer here 
than was endured under the Mosaic dispensation. Let us see. 
In the 24th chapter of Matthew, Jesus Christ, speaking of the 
tribulation that should come upon Jerusalem, says, (verse 



UNIVERSALIS!. 



103 



21,) " For there shall be great tribulation, such as was 
not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor 
€ver shall be! Now here are tribulations to happen in this 
world, greater than ever were, or shall be hereafter. Does 
he deny this? Is it not proved? How emphatic, clear, and 
explicit is the language of our Savior! Then there shall 
be great tribulation, such as never was. This embraces 
those who had died before, and been punished. u No, nor 
ever shall be" This embraces all that is to happen here- 
after. Such was the tribulation he speaks of to occur in 
that generation. Jesus Christ knew no greater punishment 
than this, which is to be endured in this fife. Enough on the 
point of the "sorer" punishment spoken of by my friend. 
Men may be more guilty under Christianity than under the 
Mosoic law; but not infinitely more so. There is not that 
difference between men then and now, that they should be 
punished only in this life, but we to all eternity ! Yet the rev- 
elation of Christianity is called a revelation of life and 
peace and joy secured to all men! 

The gentleman insists that if God wants all men to be 
made holy and saved, he would do it in this life; and asks. 
Is it not his will that all should be saved in this life? No. It 
has not been God's will. Had it been, he would have sent 
the Truth to the millions of men in darkness; but they 
have been left without the Truth for near six thousand years. 
Would he not have sent it to them, if this had been his 
will? " The Lord doeth his will in the army of heaven, 
and among the inhabitants of the earth." Does my friend 
deny the final accomplishment of his will, as declared in 
this passage? Then he says that God wants to save all men, 
but is disappointed, and will be eternally disappointed of his 
pleasure. He will possess an ungratified desire — he will 
be tormented by an unfulfilled desire, to all eternity! 

If Mr. Waller is a Calvinisl, he believes in the accom- 
plishment of the will of God. If not, if he is an Arminian, 
he takes the position that Jesus Christ cannot accomplish 
the object of his mission; but is like a man who undertook 
"to build a tower without counting the cost, and could, not 
finish it:" he was mocked! because not able to finish his 
undertaking:— that's Arminianism. God has declared his 
will and purpose that all men should be saved, and has 
promised it; and said he was able to accomplish it. But 
Arminians say he can't do it!! The Devil is stronger than. 



104 



DEBATE ON 



the Almighty, and will prevent him! If my friend is a 
Calvinist, therefore, he is right, in believing that God will 
and can do his pleasure. But he asks me why God does 
not do it in this world.- why are we not all saved in this 
life? I. cannot tell him. We are told in the Bible that God 
has made us " subject to vanity, here, not willingly, but by 
reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." But 
beyond that he says— " Moreover the law entered, that the 
offence might abound." Who brought the law? what was 
the will of God in reference to the law? was it that 
ain should have power to all eternity? "But where sin 
abounded, grace did much moee abound." That was the 
result. That follows after. We do not see it yet. Does 
lie argue therefore that it will never be done at all? That 
would be directly against the positive word of God. It is 
not God's will that all should be saved in ihis life; because 
he does not give all any opportunity of being saved, possi- 
bly. 

Oh! the work of salvation is left for Christians now to 
effect by sending and preaching the Gospel! What! man's 
immortal doom depend on the conduct of Christians now? 
Are men to suffer endlessly, for the neglect of Christians 
now? All those who are in darkness in the Pagan world 
are to be punished in eternal Hell-fire, for this! Is this 
the goodness of God! and this his justice, too? to damn the 
Pagans because Christians neglect them, and then save 
those very Christians! 

It may be a strange thing to Mr. Waller that the doc- 
trine of universal salvation should not be known till the 
appearance of HoseaBallou in 1818 — though it was known 
to the Apostles and the fathers, and from their day unto the 
present. But grant all he says, it is far stranger that the 
Pagan world should be doomed to endless misery from the 
neglect of Christians, than that Father Ballou should have 
been the first man to discover the Bible doctrine of sal- 
vation. 

A few words more in relation to 1 Timothy iy. 10. "We 
trust in the living God who is Savior of all men, specially 
of those that believe." There isaspecial salvation in this 
life, to those that believe. But God is to save all men, fi- 
nally. There is no propriety in confining this to the pre- 
sent life, it refers to their immortal state; because in no 
sense is God the Savior of all men now. The gentleman 



UNIVERSALISM. 



105 



dares not deny the declaration of Paul, that God is the Sa- 
vior of all men: he says he saves all men here; but cannot 
see how he saves them in another state. 1 ask him, from 
what are all men saved in this world? From death? Then 
there is no death. From sin? Then there are no sinners, 
and no suffering. From temporal evils? Then there are 
no temporal evils; no trials; nor temptations, elc. I ask 
again, what are all men then saved from in this life 9 When 
he shows in what sense all are saved in this life, I will then 
have something more to say on that subject. 

I now proceed to advance another argument, which is 
my sixth, to wit; The destruction of all man's enemies. 
I have quoted a passage already which states that Christ 
was to destroy the Devil. I will now read 1 Corinthians 
xv. 25 and 28; "For he must reign till he hath put all 
enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be de- 
stroyed is Death." This is the last enemy. There is no 
death beyond that. Again; " Behold the Lamb of God who 
taketh away the sin of the world." 

But as my time is expired, I will resume this subject 
hereafter. 

[me. waller's fifth reply.] 

If I should not now reply to all the positions and asser- 
tions in Mr. Pingree's last speech, it is not because they 
have escaped my notice, (for perhaps, if time allows, they 
will receive due attention,) but because I want to bring 
before you the main points of this subject. Our time is 
limited, and if we suffer ourselves to be diverted after 
every little issue that may be started up, the merits of the 
subject under discussion will be lost sight of. I wish to 
give the chief place to those arguments that are consider- 
ed fundamental; and then bestow the spare time, if any, 
upon subjects of incidental or minor importance. 

There is one position of the Universalists which, by 
the consent of Mr. Pingree and all his brethren, if stricken 
down, their whole system falls to nought. It is vital to 
their cause, and as such I claim your attention to it. The 
position is this : That all punishment of sin is disciplinary 
— inflicted for the good of those punished. Now I grant it 
is a Bible doctrine, that "the light afflictions of the right- 
eous, which are for a moment, work for them a far more 
exceeding and eternal weight of glory." But is it true 



106 



DEBATE ON 



that the punishment of the wicked is always inflicted for 
their good? If not, then Universalism, by its own friends, 
is conceded to be false. On this point, they willingly 
stake their whole cause. If punishment be for the sin- 
ner's good, then it is a mercy in some sense. Whatever is 
for the good of man is a grace— a mercy. This is self- 
evident. This being the case, I remark, it will introduce 
some most unique readings into the Bible: indeed, make it 
a book of absurdities. Let us see. Gal. iii. 10: " Cursed 
is every one that continueth not in all things written in 
the book of the law to do them. 1 ' This means, according 
to Universalists, that the more a person neglects to do the 
things of the law, the more blessings from God in the 
shape of curses he will receive ! Of course their version 
of the matter would be this: " Blessed is every one that 
continueth not in all things written in the book of the law 
to do them!" 

Again; 1 Cor. xvi. 22: "If any man love not the Lord 
Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha" — let him 
he accursed, our Lord cometh. If the punishment here 
threatened be for good and be inflicted in mercy; in a 
word, if Universalism be true, the meaning of the text is, 
" If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be 
blessed; the Lord cometh!" Matthew xxvi. 46: "And 
these shall go away into everlasting punishment," that is, 
into the reception of everlasting blessings : "but the right- 
eous into life eternal;" that is, since " life eternal" is the 
antithesis of " everlasting punishment," it means, of course, 
that the righteous shall go into punishment eternal!! 

Indeed, according to this view of the subject, to be cast 
into hell-fire is to be cast into a blessed place. The lake 
that burnetii with fire and brimstone, the unquenchable 
fire, the worm that never dies, the fire that is never quench- 
ed, etc., etc., are so many phrases expressive of the means 
employed in the laboratory of heaven for making men holy 
— for purifying the soul of its dross! The hell of the Bi- 
ble is a divine hospital, where those who cannot be cured 
by the mercy of God through the blood of his Son, may 
be made spotless and pure by damnation!!! Hence there 
is no need to fear hell, nor to indulge a mistaken wish to 
escape it; it is a place of mercy and manifold blessings! 
The sooner the incorrigible experience its purifying flames, 
the sooner they will have paid the wages of sin, and fee 



ON UNIVERSAL ISM. 



107 



cleansed for the joys of heaven! " Hell is the gate of end- 
less joys; why should we dread to enter there?!" Nor is 
this all: for, according to this doctrine, God's raining upon 
the wicked "snares, fire and brimstone" is synonimous 
with sending upon them sanctifying mercies! And the 
threat against the ungodly, of " indignation, and wrath, 
tribulation and anguish," refers to the distribution of the 
different sorts of blessings! The Scripture expression, 
" fierce wrath of God," means simply, fierce goodness of 
God! and " the fiery indignation which shall devour the 
adversaries," means fiery mercy which shall save the adver- 
saries!! And "the smoke of their torment which ascend- 
eth up forever and ever," must be understood to refer to 
the smoke of the salvation of the damned ! ! 

The Universalists are wont to ascribe all the passages in 
the New Testament which speak of gehenna fire, to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, and in strains most melting and 
horrific to descant of that event : but really, they weep 
when they should rejoice; for according to their own show- 
ing, what they would persuade you to believe was the 
greatest wo ever inflicted on mankind, was no wo at all; 
but one of the richest displays of divine goodness, ever 
witnessed! And what a rich display of mercy was that 
experienced by the antideluvians! And how gloriously was 
divine goodness poured out upon Sodom and Gomorrah! 
And Pharoah and his hosts were destroyed for their good! 

Again, in Matthew xi. 21-24, we read — "Wo unto 
thee, [but, as amended by Universalism, — blessed art thou,] 
"Chorazin! wo unto thee, [blessed art thou,] Bethsaida! 
It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of 
judgment than for thee," [for thou shalt experience a 
more abundant outpouring of God's mercy in the shape of 
punishment than they!] " And thou Capernaum! it shall be 
more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judg- 
ment than for thee," for I will pour out upon you of bless- 
ed and purifying punishments, more abundantly than ever 
I did upon them!! 

But the doctrine bears another absurdity upon its face. 
How can punishment be disciplinary, or for the good of 
men, when in a great many cases its very infliction pre- 
cludes the possibility of reformation? The antideluvians. 
the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the untold 
millions who have been cut off in their sins and for their 



108 



DEBATE ON 



sins, could not reform after their punishment— could not 
experience the benefits, to bring about which Universal ists 
argue, the punishment was inflicted upon them. Again: 
If disciplinary, the salutary results of it were to be expe- 
rienced in this life. Universalism teaches that nothing in 
this life makes an impress on character in the life to come. 
That death is an act of oblivion in regard to the actions of 
all men, whether righteous or wicked. It follows then, 
that punishment was instituted to prevent the individual 
from the commission of sin in this life. It has no other 
end. Taking this view of the subject, and heaven's is the 
most inefficient government ever established. It never 
has, in one solitary instance, with all its disciplinary pun- 
ishment, succeeded in keeping one solitary individual from 
the commission of sin. Seeing then that the law is inade- 
quate to produce the ends designed by its enactment, wisdom 
and humanity would long since have dictated its repeal! 

So much for this point at present. Universalism has 
staked its existence on its truth. I have shown, I trust, to 
your entire satisfaction, that the doctrine that all punish- 
ment for sin is disciplinary, is alike abhorrent to reason 
and to revelation. I will now proceed. 

I did not come here to defend Mr. Wesley. But I am 
not disposed, nevertheless, that the gentleman shall change 
the issue, and thus evade the consequences to himself of 
misrepresenting Mr. Wesley in his former speeches. You 
remember that he said, time and again, with great vocifer- 
ation, that Mr. Wesley said, that the word " creature" or 
"creation," in the 8th of Romans, meant specifically and only 
the brutes. This I questioned, and adduced Mr. W.'s Notes 
on the passage to the contrary. Now the gentleman, see- 
ing that he is in a corner, that there is no way to rid him- 
self of the charge of misrepresentation, with great cool- 
ness undertakes to excuse himself by showing that instead 
of saying the brutes alone, he says, all "visible creation!" 
This is an admission of all that 1 charged. He did misrep- 
resent Mr. Wesley, grossly and palpably, as he himself is 
compelled to acknowledge. I repeat, it is no part of my 
business to defend Mr. Wesley's exposition. I call no man 
my master. No one claims that Mr. Wesley was an infal- 
lible interpreter of the Bible. He may have erred on this 
passage. 1 believe he did. Homer, it is said, was wont to 
nod ; and Mr. Wesley sometimes gave his opinion hastily. 



UNIVERSALIS!. 



103 



It is enough for me to show that this passage does not 
prove Mr. Filigree's doctrine. He seems to be laboring 
under the sophistical delusion that if he shows that his 
doctrine may be taught in a passage, that therefore it is 
taught! But this is not enough. He is bound to show that 
it contains his doctrine beyond all reasonable cavil or 
doubt. Admit that a doctrine is legitimately established by 
showing it may be, and no error, however monstrous, and 
no heresy, however destructive, but can be sustained. 
Now I assert, and have shown, that this passage cannot af- 
ford positive proof for Mr. Pingree, (and that is what his 
cause demands,) nay, I have gone further, and demonstra- 
ted that it does not furnish a hook to hang a reasonable 
inference upon Mr. Pingree will not insult your common 
sense by telling you, that infants and idiots who are ignor- 
ant of every thing: that infidels and atheists, who do not 
believe in a hereafter, and that the heathen who know 
nothing of the matter, earnestly expect "the manifesta- 
tion of the sons of God;" and yet, unless he will venture 
this declaration, which would blister the tongue of false- 
hood itself, he can never claim this passage as affording 
the slightest proof of his doctrine. 

And I beg you to observe, that not a passage quoted by 
Mr. Pingree, from his own ehowing, clearly asserts his 
doctrine. Strange to say, that he thinks it is enough to 
rest a doctrine involving the eternal interests of the untold 
millions of the human family, upon the shadowy and in- 
substantial foundation of it may be so! Yes, he asks you 
to freight your hopes for eternity and the tremendous con- 
cerns of your immortal souls, upon a bark of fancy, 
launched upon the ocean of conjecture! Yes, he asks you 
to mount to the skies, on a ladder, " placed on the brink of 
an abyss, and leaned against a cloud!!" Dying men! I 
warn you against the fearful hazard of such an adventure. 

Mr. Pingree complains that I misrepresented him, in say- 
ing that he argued in favor of the salvation of unbelievers 
from a passage which says We are saved only through 
righteousness. He says, his argument was from another 
text, and was, that all were to be made righteous. Admit 
the explanation; and will he affirm that the righteousness 
of Christ is imparted to unbalievers, in face of the positive 
declaration, that it is " unto all and upon all them that be- 
lieve?" But he misunderstood me. 1 did not say, that he 



no 



DEBATE ON 



argued from the passage that I read. No: but that he per- 
verted the reasoning of the Apostle by not reading that 
passage. He stopped too suddenly in his quotation. The 
Apostle was proving the salvation of the righteous, and Mr. 
Pingree quoted him as if he were proving the salvation of 
the unrighteous! That was the charge I preferred against 
him. And I cannot see what his explanation amounts to, 
unless it is the admission that he argues one way and the 
Apostle another; and that I ought not to have charged 
them with reasoning alike! If I made such a charge, I 
was very wrong, and I now, without the slightest reserva- 
tion, retract it, as alike grossly unjust both to Mr. Pingree 
and the Apostle. 

The gentleman now says, that he does not believe that 
all are saved in this life! This shows that he is reduced to 
great extremity; or why would he thus confront and 
beard the lions of his own party? But grant that he 
does not believe it, and he subverts his own cause; 
for he, in effect, asserts that all are not saved ! For he tells 
you that salvation is from sin — that that is the Bible mean - 
ing, and consequently the only true meaning of the term. 
He tells us moreover, that there is no punishment after 
death, consequently no sin; for he is equally positive in 
the assumption that punishment necessarily follows sin. 
Then there is no sin after death; consequently no one can 
be saved after death, for the term saved necessarily implies 
sin. It follows then, if all are not saved in this life, then 
they are not saved at all, seeing they cannot be saved in 
the next life, for there is no sin there, and where there is 
no sin, there is no salvation! Thus in avoiding Scylla, he 
has plunged into Chary bdis — in shunning the rock he has 
foundered in the whirlpool! 

He says that I quoted Origen as teaching eternal pun- 
ishment, and yet admitted he did not believe the doctrine. 
Of course Mr. Pingree did not understand me, and for his 
benefit I feel bound to re-state the facts in relation to Ori- 
gen; although I suppose this will be a work of superero- 
gation, so far as this entire audience is concerned, for I 
doubt not that you all understood me: I stated that Origen 
believed and taught, that eternal punishment was the doc- 
trine of the Bible; but that he held that the Scriptures 
were not to be followed according to the letter. Indeed, 
that his mode of spiritualizing set aside the Bible, and 



UNIVERSALIS*! 



Ill 



enabled him to weave a system under the name of Chris- 
tianity, that had full as much of the dreams of Pagan phi- 
losophers as of the doctrines of Jesus and his Apostles, 
That he taught punishment was not eternal, but professed 
to derive no support from the Bible. His doctrine on this 
subject was purely heathenish; it did not profess to be 
any thing else. But in defending the Scriptures from the 
attacks of Celsus, he admitted that the Scriptures taught 
the eternal punishment of the wicked, and defended the 
doctrine by showing that as presented in the Bible, it was 
better calculated to reform and restrain mankind, than the 
same doctrine, as presented by the Mystagogues. I re- 
peat, then, that neither Origen nor any other Greek writer 
ever uses the term aionios as applied to the punishment of 
sinners, in a limited sense. Origen, as I have shown, 
taught the very reverse. We cannot take Mr. Pingree's 
assertions for proofs. I now repeat my challenge, to make 
good what he has said of Origen by one solitary quotation 
from his writings; aye, I will be content with a solitary 
quotation from any Greek writer. 

Now I will show you that he makes such statements, not 
because lie is informed on the subject-— -for he is not — but 
because the dire necessities of his cause requires it. You 
remember he said, that Clement did not use the word eter- 
nal in the sense of endless. Let us hear from Clement 
himself : 

"Jesus said, — And ye also, fear not those that kill you, 
and after that have no more that they can do unto you; 
but fear him who after you are dead, has power to cast both 
soul and body into hell-fire. * * * * For, if we do the 
will of Christ, we shall find rest: but if not, nothing shall 
deliver us from eternal punishment, if we shall disobey 
his command. * * * * Thus speaks the prophet con- 
cerning those who keep not their seal; Their worm shall 
not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall 
be for a spectacle unto all flesh. Let us therefore repent, 
whilst we are yet upon the earth: for we are as clay in the 
hand of the artificer. For as the potter, if he make a ves- 
sel, and it be turned amiss in his hands, or broken, again 
forms it anew: but if he has gone so far as to throw it into 
the furnace of fire, he can no more bring any remedy to 
it; so we, whilst we are in this world, should repent with 
our whole heart for whatsoever evil we have done in the 



'112 



DEBATE ON 



flesh, while we have yet the time of repentance, that we 
may be saved by the Lord. For after we shall have de- 
parted out of this world, we shall no longer be able to con- 
fess our sins, or repent in the other." 2d Epistle to Co- 
rinthians. 

I mean no disrcpect; but I think my friend, Mr. Pingree, 
ought not to use edge tools; he may cut his fingers. He 
ought not to venture in water beyond his depth. He re- 
members the homely proverb, "little boats should keep 
near the shore.'" This instance of Clement shows that he 
has been talking on a subject he never investigated, and of 
which he is as profoundly ignorant, as he is of the geogra- 
phy of the moon. On a subject so important as \k\4, he 
ought to hazard no statement at random. The destiny of 
souls is at stake. 

In answer to my statement, that no murderer, or liar, 
could be saved, Mr. Filigree refers to the cases of David, 
and Peter, etc. Their examples do not touch my position. 
David, the murderer, was not saved; it was David, the new 
creature, not David born of the flesh, but David born of the 
spirit. David, the murderer, was killed ; the David of whose 
salvation the Bible mentions, had passed from death unto 
life, wa? quickened and made alive by the spirit of God. 
He was altogether another man, in a moral sense, from 
David, the murderer. The David of whom we speak, was 
just, because justified by faith : he was innocent and pure, 
through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. The 
same remarks apply to Peter, and every similar case. No: 
I believe God when he says that no murderer, nor liar, 
can inherit his kingdom. I protest against Mr. Pingree's 
efforts to place me alongside of himself in relation to this 
matter. 

But my opponent, still insists that he contends for just 
what 1 do, except that I urge that the Bible teaches that 
man must believe — must be changed in this life; and that 
he insists that this may take place in the life to come — 
that unbelievers, the drunkard, etc., are changed and saved 
after death, in another world. And this is a very great 
difference; they are as opposite as light and darkness. On 
my part, I have the plain declarations of Scripture for 
such a change in this life — can tell how it is done, and 
wh n it is done. It is a plain, common sense subject. But 
he has nothing but the wildest conjecture to support his 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



113 



position. He teaches that men in the grave believe with- 
out hearing the Gospel! — that a moral change is effected 
in them without the presentation of motive!! Now, if Mr. 
Pingree's fancy is to be your guide — if the ignis fat ui of his 
imagination are to be your leaders on this great subject, 
why not substitute them for the Bible altogether, and dis- 
card the u book of God's inspiration,"' as worse than " old 
wives' fables 1 " 

If such a change as he contends for takes place in the 
grave — if men become entirely changed in their feelings 
and sentiments, without motive, and reason, and conscious- 
ness — if it is effected instantaneously and by miracle — 
without repentance or a knowledge of the Gospel; but sud- 
denly, in a moment, he becomes a new creature, with new 
principles and new affections, then all identity is destroyed; 
the man does not know himself, and will be unconscious that 
he ever existed before. Shakspeare relates, that a nobleman 
finding a drunken tinker asleep in a gutter, had him taken 
and placed in an elegant bed, in a fine room, and clothed in 
costly apparel : servants were placed around him, and when 
he awoke they addressed him by the title of "lord," and 
induced the poor fellow to think that he had been deranged 
for some fourteen years — that he was indeed a lord, and 
never Christopher Slie at all! A similar experiment was 
tried on another drunken man, by one of the emperors of 
Germany, and the man on coming to himself supposed that 
he had never been any thing else than a courtier and a 
prince, and that all that thing about his being a beggar 
and a drunkard was the result of a disagreeable dream! 
Now apply this. If experiment has proven that by a mere 
change of external circumstances, men can be led to reject 
their former existence and treat it as a dream, what must 
be the effect when an external change far transcending 
those alluded to, accompanied by a change equally as radi- 
cal and as thorough in ail the sentiments and feelings of 
the soul? Why, such a change would destroy the possi- 
bility of their ever supposing they had even dreamed. 
They would be, to all intents and purposes, other persons. 
Suppose that some of us, to-night, should lie down, firm 
believers in Christianity, and one of the genii of eas- 
tern fable, were to convey us away while asleep; and in 
the morning we should awake, and find ourselves dressed 
in Arabian costumes, in the great mosque of Mecca, sur- 
8 



114 



DEBATE OK" 



1th all the- paraphernalia peculiar to Moliamme- 
ip; the memory of our country blotted from' the 
<h, and all traces of our holy religion erased from 

and our mouths ready to utter from the 'a bund- 
a- hearts, ** .Allah is great, and Mahomet is his- 

Who. I say, supposing such a change possible,, 
ill the past.' — would dream that he ever was 

a worshipper Tof the p rennet? — who would not 



■ill 



toe pr 
place 



W 



uty 



the very opposite nat 
would it be possible for 
atheist and blasphemer 
o.o identity. Every 11 
'■ a v id ual- sentiment, fe 



of the moment h 



in their stead. lie has noth 
indeed, wholly another bein£ 
You remember that f. shov 
much relied upon by Univer; 
gree with a great flourish — ' 
in the earth, much more the luic, 
inspired translator, "If the 
where shall the ungodly and 
no explanation of the trans! 
one of many evidences, that 



at h . 1 atee , 10 r exam- 
ho believed there was 
shed as his epitaph — 
o derided the Savior as 
renounced the Bible a 
dies, and in /^re^ lifts 
orld has faded from his 
with love to God. His 
> to the King of kings 
3 the melody cf angels. 

the splendors of the 
the robes of righteous- 
sands,- and a crown of 
feeling and sentiment 
?ontrolled his actions, 
cs supplied by those of 
such a change, how 
titify himself with the 
it nefore? There is 
nay be termed the 
lances, internal and 
e re ry opposite, put 
former self; and is, 

ie famous passage so 
] quoted by Mi\ Pin- 
'eous are recompensed 
jeen rendered by an 
seareely be saved, 



spear 



I offered 



tly quoted it as 
m is indebted to 



UNIVERSALIS M 



115 



Ignorance for its support. Now, how does Mr. Pingree get 
out of this matter] Does he dispute what I have said; Not 



at al! ; that he dares not do. What then? Why, he labors 
to show that the passage as quoted by Peter docs not prove 
future eternal punishment! Had net the gentleman better 
have waited until I said it did? Why did he not rheet file 
issue that I made? Docs he think to escape the charge of 



ignorance of the Scripluj-es, which 
diverting attention to a new point 
most egregiously mistaken, if tie i 
all necessary to use the passage 



poses than to prove that the fomidatwn of Uniccrsalism is 
laid in ignorance, I shall do so. But I shall be governed 
by my own judgment in relation to that necessity. 

Bat we are now coming to something tangible. My 
friend feels now the necessity of <3oingj what I have" told 
him all along he must, but which he stoutly declared he 
zoould not do; that is, tell, us when and lioic the wicLcd were 
made meet for heaven. He now answers by saying, it is 
at and by means of the resurrection. "He bases his argu- 
ment on 1 Corinthians xv.. and calls this the fjtCchi -pillar of 
his system. Before I proceed to _ examine analytically 
this chapter, I beg leave to present in Connection with it. 
and as fatally subversive of the gentleman's exposition of 
it, other passages of Holy Writ, bearing. or. the great sub- 
ject of the resurrection of the dead. It is a rule of in- 
terpretation never to be departed from, that the Bible must 
explain itself; and that it does not contradict itself. If I 
produce then other passages palpably and unequivocally 
contradicting Mr. Pingree's exposition of this, then I have 
proved him to be wrong. Bear this in mind, whilst I read: 
Daniel xii. 2 : <k And many [more literally — the AutiUitfLel of 
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
everlasting life, and some to shame and ttefla ti is contempt,." 
New Daniel asserts with Paul in relation to the righteous 
(and Paul in 1 Corinthians xv. was speaking only of the re- 
surrection of the righteous) that they shall awake to ever- 
lasting life ; and adds in relation to the wicked, of Whom Paul 
does not particularly speak in this chapter, that they should 
awake to shame and everlasting contempt., Of course then, 
in the resurrection, all are not saved and male holy. 
John v. 28, 29: Jesus himself settles this matter: "Mar- 



vel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that 



116 



DEBATE' Olf 



are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come 
forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of 
life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of 
damnation." Wilt- Mr. Pingree contradict the Son of God, 
and say those who have done evil shall come forth to the 
resurrection of holiness and salvation, when he declares 
they shall come forth to the resurrection of damnation? 
But I need not ask the question: my opponent has already 
uttered the awful contradiction! 

But let us hear the Apostle himself on this matter: 
1 Thessalonians iv. 14—13 and v. 1-4. " For if we believe 
that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which 
sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say 
unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive 
and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent 
them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall de- 
scend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the 
archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in 
Christ shall rise first: then v/e which are alive and remain 
shall be caught up together with them iu the clouds, to 
meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with 
the Lord. Wherefore, comfort one another with these 
words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye 
have no need that I write unto you: for yourselves know 
perfectly, that the day of the Lord so cometh as the thief 
in the night. For when they shall. say, peace and safety; 
then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon 
a woman with child,- and they shall not escape. But ye y 
brethren, are not in darkness, that that clay should over- 
take you as a thief."' 

That the Apostle was talking about the consummation 
of all things, and not about the destruction of Jerusalem, 
as the Universalists argue, is evident from his next epistle- 
It seems that the Thessalonians were alarmed as if the 
day of the Lord was at hand, (and if the destruction of Je- 
rusalem had been that day, it teas at hand,) and the Apos- 
tle wrote them this 2nd Epistle in part to disabuse their 
minds on that very point. We will read what he says on 
the subject, in its connection: 2nd Thessalonians i. 4-10 
and ii. 1-4. " For your patience and faith in all your 
persecutions and tribulations that ye endure [are] a mani- 
fest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may 
be counted worthy of the kingdom of God. for which ye 



UNIVERSALIS?!. 



117 



also suffer; seeing it is a righteous thing with God to re- 
compense tribulation to them that trouble you: And to you, 
who are troubled, rest with us. when the Lord Jesus shall 
be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming 
fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God. and that 
obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall 
be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence 
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he 
shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired 
in all them that believe (because our testimony among 
you was believed) in that day ***** a ^ ow we be- 
seech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that you 
he not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by 
spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us. as that the 
day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any 
means; for that day shall not cme, except there come a fall- 
ing away firs', and that man of sin be revealed, the Son of 
perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that 
is called God, or that is worshipped," etc. Now here Paul 
teaches the very reverse of what Mr. Pingree says he 
teaches in his first Epistle to the Corinthians! You must 
believe then, that Paul contradicts himself, or else that Mr, 
Pingree has misrepresented him. 

Bat let us hear him again, Acts xxiv. 15 : "And have 
hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that 
there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just 
and the unjust.*' 1 Here he declares his views to corres- 
pond with those of the Pharisees on the subject of the 
resurrection; and they, it will not be disputed, held that 
the unjust should be raised to everlasting punishment. 
This settles the question beyond controversy, that Paul 
has been misrepresented by Mr. Pingree. 

Let lis hear from another Apostle, Revelations xx. 
11-15 and xxL 8: "And 1 saw a great white throne, and 
him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the 
heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; 
and the books were opened: and another book was opened, 
which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of 
those things which were written in the books, according to 
their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; 
and death and hell [hades] delivered up the dead which 



118 



DEBATE N 



were in them; and they were judged every man according 
to their works. And death and hell [hades, or those who 
had been in hades'] were cast into the lake of fire. This 
is the second death. And whosoever was not found written 
in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. ***** 
The fearful and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and 
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, 
and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burn- 
etii with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." 

I repeat, the Scriptures do not contradict themselves: but 
they do most emphatically and unequivocally contradict 
Mr. Pingree's assumption, that the wicked receive holiness 
and salvation in the resurrection. The passages already 
quoted as plainly contradict him as it is possible for lan- 
guage to do it. And you will see in the sequel, when the 
subject of a judgment and kindred matters are introduced, 
that these are but a very few of the multitude of passages, 
directly against his position. Let theso, however, suffice 
for the present. 

I wish you to observe his assertion, that all those who die 
unbelievers, murderers, liars, idolaters, atheists, deists, etc., 
are changed in the resurrection. He has told us that there is 
no sin and no misery after death. Now he must affirm 
that those persons are changed the moment they die; or 
else that they remain in a state of sin and misery from 
their death until the resurrection! Or will he take the 
semi-infidel ground of the materialist — that the soul does 
not exist without the body? That the soul with the body 
rots and mingles with the dust until the resurrection 
morn 1 

As 1 have a little more time, there is one other import- 
ant point to which 1 will direct your attention: it is re- 
specting what has been said, relative to the will of God. 
Now, Universalists teach, (and Mr. Pingree, if he has not 
directly affirmed, has nevertheless countenanced the doc- 
trine,) that sin — every thing that transpires, is by the will of 
God; and inasmuch as he wills sin for man's good, that 
therefore he will not punish it in the life to come. The 
same reasoning would prove that he would not punish it in 
this life. But I deny the position, as nothing short of 
downright blasphemy ! It is to assert that God is the author 
of all the sin committed in this world. Aye, it makes him 
the violaterof his own law! He has commanded, "Thou 



UNIVERSALIS*!. 



shalt have no other gods hefore me:" and can he then be 
the cause of all the idolatry upon earth; He says, »l Thou 
shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain:" and 
is he the author of all the blasphemy upon earth? Again : 
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy:' 1 and then 
does he cause it to be violated? "Thou shalt not kill:" and 
has he caused all the blood to be spilled which has defiled 
the earth? In a word, he has required that we should 
love him supremely and one another as ourselves: and 
can we believe that he wills at the same that we should not 
love him at all, and that we should hate our neighbors? 
This doctrine degrades Jehovah from the high and holy 
habitation that he occupies down to the level of the divin- 
ities of paganism! The heathens worship 

" Gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust ; 
Whose attributes are rage, revenge, or lust.'' 

To be a Universalist, a man must divest himself of all 
those notions of God, which make him a being worthy of 
reverence and veneration. 

[mr, fingree's sixth speech.] 
Respected Friends: — Mr. Waller, in the opening of his 
last speech, remarking upon the disciplinary nature of pun- 
ishment, made this declaration: that if the punishment in- 
flicted by God for transgression, was not disciplinary and 
for the reformation of the sinner, Universalism was false; 
and vice versa. His language was, «* The whole doctrine 
turns upon this point.'' He admitted that if punishment 
was disciplinary, and for the reformation of sinners, Uni- 
versalism was true. Now, though we hold that punishment 
is disciplinary and for reformation; yet we deny that the 
doctrine of universal salvation depends and turns upon 
that. Even though that doctrine should not be true, Uni- 
versalism would not consequently be false. But if Mr. W al- 
ler does not admit it to be true, it follows that punishment 
must be vindictive, and inflicted purely and only in a re- 
vengeful and malicious spirit, which measures to the sinner 
according to his sins, without reference to his being made 
better, and for the purpose of retaliation only. We be- 
lieve that the object of all God's punishments is to bring- 
all men to goodness, and purity, and happiness. 

We have following this declaration a number of pas- 
sages quoted; and Mr. Waller ridiculed the idea of pun- 



120 



DEBATE ON 



ishment being intended for reformation. We have been 
referred lo all that class of passages containing the words, 
"cursed," 44 wo," " anathema," fire. Hell, snares, sorrows, 
indignation, wrath, terror, torment, etc., and then the same 
passage with the word " blessings," substituted, etc.; such 
as, " blessed is he that continueth not in all things of the 
law to do them." 

Now you know that punishment is frequently spoken of 
as a u curse," a wo inflicted by " fury" and "wrath" even,* 
especially in the Old Testament: but that notwithstanding 
this language is so often seen in the Old Testament, yet 
the Old Testament itself expresses that it was inflicted for 
the benefit of sinners, and was followed by happiness. I 
refer for example, to Jeremiah xxxiii. I would quote a 
number of other passages, but have not time. It is enough 
to notice this now. Jeremiah xxxiii. 5-8. "They come 
to fiffht with the Chaldeans; but it is to fill them with the 
deaJ bodies of men whom 1 have slain in mine anger, and 
in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my 
face from this city. Behold 1 will bring it health and cure, 
and I will cure them, and will reveal unto them the 
abundance of peaie ai$~d truth. And 1 will cause the cap- 
tivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and 
will build them, as at the first. And I will cleanse them 
from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against 
me: and I will pardon all the iniquities, whereby they have 
sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me." 

Here is an instance of God's inflicting punishment, but 
followed by future peace, and holiness, and joy. But as 
Mr. Waller attempted so seriously to ridicule the idea of 
punishment being inflicted in order that a blessing might 
follow, I will quote some passages bearing directly upon 
that point, to show that God's punishments are inflicted 
generally for the benefit of the svfferer. 

Hebrews xii. 9-11. " Furthermore we have had fathers 
of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them rever- 
ence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the 
Father of spirits and live? For they verily for a few days 
chastened us after their own pleasure ; but he for our profit. 
that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chas- 
tening for the present scemeth to be joyous, but grievous : 
nevertheless afterwards it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of 
iightcousn.es; unto them which are exercised thereby." 



UNIVERSALISM. 



121 



Does not this again prove that the very object of Divine 
punishment and chastisement is the benefit of the sinner? 
My friend has challenged me to produce a single individual 
case where punishment has effected the object of disci- 
pline and reform. Did not Nebuchadnezzar proudly exalt 
himself against God, and was he not for this changed into 
a beast, as it were, and driven out for seven years from 
the society of man? And did not Nebuchadnezzar after- 
wards acknowledge that the punishment was for his benefit, 
and praise and worship God? David speaks of being 
put into the " lowest Hell;" and he thanked God for deliv- 
erance from it; and said he was made better by it : "Be- 
fore I was afflicted I went astray — but now have I kept thy 
law." So with Jonah. God told him to go and preach to the 
Ninevites. He disobeyed, and God sent him to Hell, where 
he was punished " forever" — that word being used in a 
limited sense, as always when applied to punishment. Jo- 
nah after he was sent to "Hell," was again ordered to go 
and preach at Nineveh, and he went; though he refused 
before. He was no more disposed to disobey the command 
of God, because the punishment had reformed him. So 
with the incestuous Corinthian. No doubt he was made 
a better man after his punishment. It is said his punish- 
ment was " sufficient;'''' and the brethren were requested 
to " comfort" him, lest he suffer " over much." This 
would not have been said unless his punishment had 
made him better. Now here are cases where the Di- 
vine chastisements were for the benefit of those who en- 
dured them. 

Mr. Waller refers to many cases of punishment; but 
not one of the passages expresses suffering in a future 
life. They all rather establish punishment in the present 
life. Even concerning the Sodomites, about whom Mr. 
Waller inquires, the sacred writers represent God as say- 
ing, " I took them away as I saw good." It was not from 
vindictiveness; but for their benefit. If my friend ridicules 
the idea that punishment is for the benefit of the sufferer, 
he ridicules the plainest declarations of God's Word, such 
as those already quoted. 

Mr. Waller spoke of the language of Jesus, and stated 
that the Universalists applied it all to the destruction of 
Jerusalem. I ask the favor of him not to refer such words 
to the destruction of Jerusalem, as the opinion of Univer- 



122 



DEBATE ON 



salists, till I do, in this place and on this occasion. As yet, 
I have not done it. 

Mr. Waller remarks that "creature" in 8th Romans, 
means the intelligent creation. He once before applied it 
to the stocks and stones. He says now it refers to the in- 
telligent cseation. This is all I ask; and my argument is 
established on his own admission. 

On the passage from the 5th Romans, he says the" salva- 
tion is " through righteousness" and not in unrighteousness. 
The preceding verses embrace the doctrine, and express 
the fact, that all men are to " become righteous." The 
concluding verses then express the truth that men are 
saved " through righteousness. 1 ' The fact that righteous 
men are saved, does not exclude others; because it is de- 
clared that all are to be " made righteous." The promise 
of salvation reaches back to their condition as sinners, and 
denotes the purpose of God to bring them into a state of 
holiness and happiness — thus saving them. The 5th chap- 
ter of Romans can not be taken out of our hands, as a 
proof of final universal salvation. 

He states that my Universalist brethren affirm that all men 
are saved in this life. I have not heard of it, nor have 1 
read it; nor do I believe it. 

He quotes from Clement; and I confess I was somewhat 
surprised after the remarks I had made, by his quotation 
on that subject. Since then I have looked over Clement's 
remarks to the Corinthians. I find that in his jirst Epis- 
tle to the Corinthians, there is no allusion made to misery 
in a future life; and it was in reference to the impression 
made on my mind by that circumstance, that I made the 
assertions I did. The quotation is from his remarks in the 
second Epistle. The heading to this Epistle says that this 
treatise is not of equal authority as first Corinthians; that 
it appears to be written in a different style, etc. The 
first Epistle to the Corinthians is more lengthy; the other 
is evidently not by the same author; and the opinions the 
second expresses would have been called out in first 
Corinthians, if anywhere. The mistake was that the gen- 
eral remark I made about Clements' opinion, derived from 
my impression from reading that first and most authentic 
Epistle, was made to apply to the other; which we do not 
believe to have been written by him at all! 

It does not follow that because drunkards are to be 



r N I V E R S A L I S M . 



123 



saved, they are saved as d'-'unka-ds. Universal ism does not 
teach that men are saved in sin; — for that would be a con- 
tradiction in terms; — but from sin. 

The common doctrine is, as before stated, that a man's 
everlasting condition hereafter, depends on the state of 
mind and heart in which he dies. Suppose there cannot 
be a change after death, as Partialism asserts: — a man 
dying drunk, must go the Judgment, drunk ! remaining 
forever druis'k! to haunt the grog-shops of Hell to all eter- 
nity — brfxk!! So with all classes of sinners: they must 
continue in active commission of those particular vices to 
all eternity. So Pagans, idiots, etc.: infidels, all who die 
morally depraved beings, must remain so to all eternity. 
The idea is, that dying corrupt, physically and morally, 
they go to judgment thus, and thence to Hell; and thus 
remain corrupt beings to all eternity. Pagans die idola- 
ters. They must go idolaters to the judgment seat, from 
there they go as idolaters to Hell, and there remain such 
to all eternity! AH this, if there be no change after 
death. 

But Mr. Waller himself believes in a change alter death. 
Whether the doctrine be true or not, will appear by and 
bye. Does he not believe that even the saints die sinful; 
to some extent? Are they perfectly fitted for Heaven, in 
this life ? Then if not perfectly cleansed from all sin, be- 
fore death, they remain sinful forever, — unless after 
death they have an opportunity to change? Must a man 
who curses God once, and now, curse him to all eternity? 
Is there no chance of ever ceasing from doing evil, when 
once beyond death ? Must a bad man, who up to death 
could repent, lose Chat power forever, and retain that of 
doing evil oxly? This would be a change of constitution 
and character, the greatest that could happen to a moral 
being — and will not occur under the government of a holv 
God.' 

If it were so that the doctrine was that they who suffer 
most here generally, will enjoy most hereafter, to pay 
them for all that was endured here, as in Mr. Waller's 
appeal to the case of the wicked man 'who oppressed the 
widow and fatherless. I could not so much object to it. 
But it is not so, according to Mr. Waller's theory. The 
oppressed may go to Hell, and the oppressor to glory \ Such 
generally have an opportunity of repenting, before death, 



124 



DEBATE ON 



as they intend to; but the oppressed and suffering, left 
in ignorance and moral darkness, die and go to perdition! 
Those sons of perdition who have abandoned themselves 
to wickedness, for ninety years, may go to heaven, if they 
repent the last moment of their lives; and those good 
men who have done their duty all through an equal num- 
ber of years, may go to Hell eternally, if they happen to 
commit one sin, and then die suddenly. The best men may 
be lost, and the ivorst saved, by conceding this. 

Take an illustration of the doctrine: We may imagine 
an individual of good moral character, and one who has 
been generally a virtuous man. He offends a scoundrel— 
an infamous wretch — who suddenly, and without notice, 
cuts him off, and dying unregenerate, he goes to Hell; 
while his murderer is tried, and convicted, and sentenced 
to be hung. While in jail, a minister of the Gospel visits 
him, and exhorts him to repent. He repents and is con- 
verted, and from the gallows he swings into everlasting life 
and glory! The generally virtuous, good citizen, whom he 
cruelly murdered, is suffering the torture of an immortal 
Hell, while the murderer is shouting in glory! Such 
things may and do occur, if the doctrine of endless dam- 
nation is true, — -the current doctrine which is believed and 
acted on by the Orthodox. 

An anecdote is told, — I cannot vouch for its truth, as I 
was not there, — of a Moor who had been offended by a 
Christian. He swore revenge; and meeting the Christian 
alone one day, he required him to abjure Christianity; 
and holding a poignard at his breast, told him if he did not, 
he would kill him. The man, to save his life, abjured his 
Master. The moment he did this, the wretch plunged the 
dagger to his breast, exclaiming with the exulting laughter 
of a fiend, "Now 1 have taken double vengeance! 1 have 
taken his life in this world, and have damned bis soul in 
the next!" That man, if converted afterwards, went to 
glory, and enjoyed from his seat of happiness, and gloated 
over the sufferings of the victim of his demoniacal re- 
venge in Hell! He had indeed taken a double vengeance! 
Such effects may be- produced, according to this doctrine. 

Mr. Waller quoted a passage in Peter, which he said 
was parallel to the passage I quoted from the Wise 
Man in Proverbs: "If the righteous be scarcely saved, 
where shall the ungodly and the wicked appear?" Docs 



UNIVERSALISM. 



125 



this refer to the fmal salvation? Are the righteous 
" SAE.CELY saved" there? Is it the view taken by his Or- 
thodox brethren? No. Dr. Whitby, Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. 
Gilpin, Mr. Macknight, and Calmet, do not say this. I 
have a compilation of their opinions, written by Rev. 
L. R. Paige. What do they say? Listen : 

Dr. Whitby says : " For the time is come, that judgment 
mast, according to our LorcPs prediction — Matt. xxiv. 21, 
22, Mark ami. 13, Luke xxi. 16, 17— -begin at the house of 
God; and if it first begin at us— believing Jews, what will 
be the end of them that obey not the Gospel of God? And 
if some of the righteous scarcely be saved, i. e., preserv- 
ed from this burning, ver. 12, being saved, yet so as by 
fire, 1 Cor. iii. 15 — where shall the ungodly and the sinner 
appear in safety from these dreadful judgments which are 
coming on the Jewish nation?" Prov. xi. 31. 

Lightfoot says : " ' The time is come that judgment 
must begin at the house of God;' that is, the time foretold 
by our Savior is now at hand, in which we are to be deliv- 
ered up to persecution, etc. These words denote that per- 
secution which the Jews, now near their ruin, stirred up, 
almost every where, against the professors of the Gos- 
pel." Matt. xxiv. 9. 

Gilpin says: " Thus, amidst the general ruin which is 
coming upon these wicked times, the Christian shall have 
his share. But his afflictions will be light, in comparison 
of that great overthrow which shall destroy the Jewish 
nation." 

Macknight says: "That the Apostle is not speaking 
here of the difficulty of the salvation of the righteous at 
the day of judgment, will be evident to any one who 
considers, 2 Pet. i. 11 — " Thus there shall be richly minis- 
tered to you an entrance into the everlasting kingdom." 
What he speaks of, is the difficulty of the preservation of 
the Christians, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Yet they were preserved; for so Christ promised, Matt, 
xxiv. 13. But the ungodly and wicked Jews were saved 
neither in Judea, nor any where else." 

Calmet says: "If the righteous be scarcely able to 
escape, in these days of wrath, what shall be the fate of 
the ungodly? When God began to exercise vengeance 
upon the Jews, he first permitted the Christians to suffer 
many afflictions and persecutions; but after he had purified 



126 



DEBATE ON 



his church, and proved the virtue of his elect, - he admon- 
ished thera to depart from Jerusalem, and its borders, and 
to remove beyond Jordan. Ecclesiastical historians relate 
that .they- retired to Pel la, under the protection of King 
Agripna, a friend and an ally of the Remans, to which 
place the violence of the war did not extend. But the 
remaining Jews experienced the fury and the power of 
ihc'r conquerors, who leveled the temple,, and Jerusalem 
i ! .-o!f, with the ground, even ploughing the earth on which 
it siood, and slew eleven hundred thousand of the Jews. 
St. Peter alludes to Prov. xi. 31, " If the righteous shall 
be recompensed in the earth, how much more the wicked 
and the sinner?"" The Apostle follows the version of the 
LXX." 

These arc admissions from Orthodox , writers of dis- 
tinction and authority in the Church. They are compelled 
to concede that this salvation was in the "present life; con- 
sequently the punishment was in the present life. Thus 
it corresponds to the declaration of the Wise Man : "The 
righteous are recompensed in the-, earth.'" Either ren- 
dering bears alike npoii the doctrine as held by me; and 
docs not leach the doctrine of future endless misery. 

We will now go back, for a moment, to another point — 
the punishment by "fire?'' He quotes passages where men 
have suffered punishment by "fire,"' and ridicules the idea 
that such a punishment could be for their beneft. Now I 
will read a passage from 1 Corinthians iii. 13, 14, 15. 
'"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day 
shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and 
the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If 
any man's work abide which he bath built thereupon, he 
shall receive a rcivard. If any man's work shall be burned, 
h: ball suffer los;: but he himself shall be saved: yet 
so as by fire." Nov/ let him ridicule God's Word, if he 
wishes. 

But let us change the figure. Suppose a man to be 
suffering under a disease. He suffers a painful operation, 
or he lakes an offensive medicine* is it not for his benefit? 
But will be therefore tie. ire the operation, or the medicine? 
WiU he bring oil the disease again, in order to be benefited 
by them? None are so foolish, it is absurd to say that 
punishment is of itself and for itself a benefit or blessing. 
It is only so, because it removes the sins, and purges the 



UNIVEESALISM. 



127 



moral nature of its diseases. This is one of GocTg >. . 
of saving men. 

This leads us to Malachi iii. The prophecy refers to 
Jesus Christ, and speaks of the influence of fire. I 
friend ridicules the idea of purification by - fire. i' «< 
us' see. Malachi iii. 2. 3, But who may abide the c ,.' 
his coming? and who shall stand when he apjpe ai!#li? fc 
he [Christ] is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap : 
and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, ai 
shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold ana 
silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an p%rin;g in 
righteousness." And John the Baptist says, referring to 
that prophecy, (Matthew iii. 4,) "1 indeed baptise you 
water unto repentance; but he that comcth after rne^ is 
mightier than I: whose shoes I am not worthy to \ jar. 
He shall baptise (or purify) you with the Holy Qkg ' 
with fire.'" [My friend adrni's, I presume, that b ; . 
pur.nes..] Here John the Baptist speaks of purification 
by the Holy Spirit and by fire. This is ihe fulfillment; of 
that prophecy of Malachi. Both Malachi and f r ;>'•-. 
Baptist speak of purification by fire. If my friend ri.'i 
the doctrine of purification by fire, he must rid: pule the 
plain declarations of the holy men of God. as recorded in 
the Sacred Writings. 

Mr. Waller says there are two or three " wills" of 
God. I should like him to say what will it is where it is 
said, " Who will have all men to be saved." Is it a " wilt 
of purpose," or some other will? Let him tell us this. 
Till then, I will not add anything concerning it. 

I will now proceed to my affirmative argument. You 
will recollect that my last argument was the destruction of 
all man's enemies, even to the last,, which is death. I first 
quoted Hebrews ii. 14. " Forasmuch then as the chil- 
dren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself like- 
wise took part of the same : that through death he might 
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the 
Devil." Keep this in mind. You have had quoled the 
passage, "Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared 
for the Devil and his angels." The passage in Hebrews 
shows that not to refer to endless punishment; because the 
Devil will be ^ destroy d.'"' 

1 next showed the destruction of .- in, the great enemy of 
man; sin, through which he endures so much wretched- 



128 



DEBATE ON 



ness here on earth. John the Baptist says of Jesus, " Be - 
hold the Lamb of God who taketh aicay the sin of the world?' 
Also, it is said that Jesus Christ came " to destroy the 
works of the Devil." Here we have the destruction of the 
Devil and all his works, including sin. 

I now refer to 1 Corinthians 15th chapter. " The last en- 
emy that shall be destroyed is death." Man has a great 
many enemies : that is the last, and it is here declared that 
Death shall be " destroyed;" is to be " swallowed up in victo- 
ry." Now if every enemy of man is destroyed ; if the Devil , 
Sin, and Death are all destroyed, where is there an enemy to 
fear that can make man miserable in the future life? If there 
be an enemy beyond the last, then I give up the question. 
I know not of any; 1 cannot imagine any : 1 know of no 
evil that is to follow death. 

But as we are now in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, I 
shall say more on the subject of the resurrection of the 
dead. Mr. Waller has quoted from Daniel, John, Thessa- 
lonians, Hebrews, Revelation, Corinthians, in reference 
to the "resurrection," "judgment," "damnation," and 
punishment, without any remarks to show their bearing 
upon the question. For the present, therefore, I shall not 
say anything about them. 1 admit the correctness and 
truth of all the passages, and believe them fully and sub- 
scribe to them. If he wishes for other passages to illus- 
trate and explain these, it will be time to produce and 
comment upon them, after he has shown their bearing 
upon the alteration of our condition hereafter. In Corith- 
ians xv., cited by Universalists, there is a passage rela- 
ting to the resurrection of the literally dead. The Apos- 
tle discusses, at large, the subject of the resurrection of 
the dead. I deny that the passage in John v., or Daniel 
xii., quoted by Mr. Waller before, refers to the resurrec- 
tion of the literally dead, to a state of immortality. 
They do not refer to eternity. But this in ! Corinthians 
xv. is admitted by all to refer to it. 

Look at the argument of the Apostle. He founds the 
doctrine of the resurrection upon the fact that Jesus 
Christ was raised from the dead. I need not read that; 
I will begin at the 20th verse : " But now is Christ risen 
from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that 
slept. For since by man came death, by man came also 
the resurrection of the dead." [The Apostle now proceeds 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



1129 



to show who are to be raised — all that die in Adam, be 
they more or less.] "For as in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own 
order: Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are 
Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he 
shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the 
Father: when he shall have put down all rule and all 
authority and all power. For he must reign till he hath 
put all enemies under his feet." [He is now rejgnlng, 
therefore, in his kingdom, as King and Judge.] "The 
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath 
put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things 
are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which 
did put all things under him. And when all things shall 
be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be 
subject unto him that put all things under him, that God 
may be all in all." Mark the fact, " that God is to be all 
in all." If the resurrection to shame and contempt, and 
to everlasting fire, refer to the literal resurrection of the 
dead to an immortal state, how can this passage be believed? 
Will God be "all in all" to them who are in shame and 1 
contempt? If so, he is all in ail to those who are in the 
world of wo! 

Let us proceed further; Mr. Waller holds that there is 
no change after death, — that as we die, so we remain for- 
ever. So if a man dies drunk, he is raised drunk — remains 
drunk forever! Look at this matter. What says Paul? 
Ver. 35. " But some man will say, How are the dead 
raised ltp? and with what body do they comet" [The 
inquiry is not, how do men die ? but how are they raised ? 
The inquiry in these days is, " How do men die ?'■' Paul 
asks, <* How are they raised ? " He does not concern him- 
self to ask how they die; but " how are they raised up ? " 
He did not say they were raised up drunkards, idolaters,, 
in dishonor 1 He taught exactly the contrary.] " Thou 
fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it 
die; and that which thou sowest, thon sowest not the body 
that shall be." 

In reference to the doctrine that we are raised as we 
die, see the 20th and 22nd chapters of Luke and Matthew, 
which bear on the doctrine of the literal resurrection of 
the naturally dead. See Matt. 22, 23. The Saddocees 
came to our Lord and put the question to him as to the 
9 



130 



DEBATE ON 



woman who had had seven husbands. They thought" to- 
puzzle him by the question, " Whose wife shall she be in 
the resurrection?" They took it for granted that the 
future life was like this. Hence the difficulty, to them, of 
this question. The seven husbands might all claim her. 
But the Savior says to them, (verse 29,) " Ye do err [and 
I say the same to our friends now;] not knowing the Scrip- 
tures, nor the power of God," [and what then follows ?} 
" For »i« the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given 
in marriage, but are as the Angels of God in Heaven."' 
That is the condition of those who shall experience the 
resurrection to a future life. Here, they are "subject to 
vanity," temptation, sin, and suffering. But in the future 
state they are " as the angels of God." They shall not 
die any more. They become " the children of God." If 
stress be laid on the expression, " They which shall be ac- 
counted worthy to obtain that world," (Luke-xx. 35,)" and 
the resurrection of the dead," I will notice them hereafter. 

Mark now the language of the Savior. In the resur- 
rection, men " are as the angels of God in heaven." None 
are so now. The highest saints, the holiest men, are not 
equal to " the angels of God in heaven." Now introduce 
Paul. "How are the dead raised up?" Are they raised 
as they die ? Is their condition in a future life similar to the 
present ? We shall see. Jesus Christ says, " Ye do err, 
not knoing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in 
the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in mar- 
riage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Paul 
says, (verse 37,) "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not 
quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest thou 
sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain : it may 
chance of wheat, or of some other grain : but God giveth 
it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own 
body. AH flesh is not the same flesh : but there is one 
kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of 
fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, 
and bodies terrestrial : but the glory of the celestial is 
one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is 
one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and 
another glory of the stars : for one star differeth from 
another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the 
dead." [How? Here is the point:] "It is sown ill cor- 
ruption-; it is raised in. incorkuption. It is sown in dis- 



UNIVERSALIS!. 



131 



honor, [the opinion of men now is that they rise thus, and 
live forever thus: — not so says Paul ;] "it is raised in glory : 
it is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power :'" [Here us 
a change after death, — a great, a wonderful change ! great- 
er than any ever experienced before death — a change 
from dishonor to glory ! Let us go on again:] — "It is 
sown a natural body : it is raised a spiritual body. There 
is a natural body and there is a spiritual body: and so it is 
written, The first man Adam was made a living soul: 
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." [So it was 
God's purpose that we should be 44 subject to vanity " here ; 
but that we should be delivered from that " into the glori- 
ous liberty of the sons of God."] 4; Howbeit, that was 
not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural : and 
afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the 
earth, earthy : the second man is the Lord from Heaven. 
As is the earthy, suclvare they also that are earthy; and as 
is the heavenly, such are they also which are heavenly; 
and as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall 
also hear the image of the heavenly P [This is the change 
after death, in the resurrection, effected by the power of 
God. And so on afterwards.] 4 4 Now this 1 say brethren: 
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; 
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I 
show you a mystery : we shall not all sleep, but we shall 
all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, 
at the last trump : for the trumpet shall sound, and the 
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be chang- 
ed — [that word so abhorrent to the minds of some; we 
shall be changed.] For this corruptible must put on in- 
corruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So 
when this corruption shall have put on incorruption, and 
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be 
brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swal- 
lowed up in victory. Oh death! where is thy sting? Oh 
grave! [Hades, or Hell, if you please,] where is thy 
victory?" All are destroyed by the resurrection to glory. 
There shall be no more sin, misery, or death, after we are. 
raised from the dead, We shall rise in glory and honor, 
in incorruption and immortality : and this declaration of 
•St. Paul corresponds to the declaration of Jesus Christ : — 
S4 they shall be as the angels of God in heaven." 

I shall insist upon this argument, until it is fairly taken 



132 



DEBATE ON 



out of ray hands. If Mr. Waller sets it aside, or takes it 
out of my hands, I shall yield the point. But unless he 
does so, 1 shall rest much of my hope of a future state of 
happiness, upon this language. It is the most lengthy, 
explicit, and elaborate statement of the doctrine of the 
resurrection to be found in all the Word of God. 

Why have men been raised to wretchedness, and sin, and 
shame forever? We don't here find expressed the doctrine 
of misery and torture. What a vast -between difference St. 
Paul's account of the resurrection, and the modern popu- 
lar one! I will add no more at present, but wait for my 
friend to notice and set aside the passage, if he can. This 
is not the last. I shall have to say upon this subject. 

I cannot tell what course Mr. Waller will pursue upon 
this passage. There are three different opinions among 
the Orthodox as to the meaning of this chapter. I wait 
for Mr. Waller's views, so as to see what bearing they 
have upon this controversy. I hope you will all be here 
to-morrow, to hear my reply to his next speech. It is due 
to yourselves, and to me, and to the truth. 

[mr. waller's sixth reply.] 

It is written, that the first shall be last, and the last, first: 
and my notice of Mr. P.'s last speech shall be in this order. 
The connection of our argument requires it. The doc- 
trine of the resurrection then demands again, our primary 
attention. My opponent seems to think it is very plainly 
taught in 1 Cor. 15, that all men are to be made holy and 
happy in the resurrection. This is his grand argument — 
his main point. 

In my last I showed that God, in the resurrection, would 
make an everlasting distinction between those that served 
him, and those that served him not. But I expected the 
gentleman would make the effort, as all his brethren do, 
to show that the passages quoted by me, had reference to 
a moral and not to a literal resurrection. But he assumes 
this ground without any warrant in criticism; and without 
the slightest countenance from the context. The only 
reason he possibly can give for such an interpretation is, 
that his cause demands it! Admit such a rule of interpre- 
tation, and the whole Bible must fall without a struggle 
before the vain conceits of dreamers and errorists. It 
will be impossible to prove that it teaches any thing. The 



2* UNIVERSALIS!!. 



133 



passages I read, assert the resurrection, in the same terms 
as in 1 Cor. 15. If the latter proves that event, so do the 
former. .And by the same rules of criticism that it can be 
shown that the term resurrection, in the passages which I 
read, does not literally mean a resurrection, I will show 
that the same is true of the term in 1 Cor. 15. Or, am 1 
to be told, that because the passages which 1 adduced spoke 
of the sinner's being raised and of his punishment, that 
therefore it cannot mean the literal resurrection? it 
would seem that such is the reasoning of Unive realists; 
and without this, they feel that their whole system van- 
ishes into air! But they cannot be permitted thus to beg 
the question. If they must insist that the portions of (he 
Scripture which mention the resurrection of the wicked, 
are poetical, and to be interpreted in a figurative sense ; 
then they must reap the consequences of their folly, and 
admit this "main pillar" of Universalism, as Mr. Pingree 
is pleased to call it, is a pillar of vapor — as impalpable to 
the touch as the ghost of Fingal! — that Paul in this place, 
as in those places of his that I read, and like Daniel, and 
our Savior, was giving loose rein to a very vivid imagina- 
tion; and I hat this whole 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians 
is but a glowing fancy sketch of a moral resurrection i 
The gentleman will thus see, that what he sows he must 
reap; that if he sows the wind, he shall reap the whirl- 
wind. 

What then is the doctrine of the Bible on this subject? 
Why. that there shall be a resurrection of the just and of 
the unjust — that the dead in Christ shall rise first. The 
main intention of the'Apostle, in 1 Cor. 15, was to comfort 
Christians by showing that they should be raised to happi- 
ness. He made it no part of his business to establish 
especially the resurrection of the unjust. This the whole- 
chapter proves. His whole reasoning is subversive of 
Universalism : for his first and main position is, that if 
there is no resurrection, it is all folly to be religious. Now, 
Universalism teaches that religion has no connection with 
the next life — that it benefits man only in this world : and 
of course, with or without a resurrection, it is equally ben- 
eficial. But the Apostle argues just the reverse of this, 
and shows that if there be no hereafter, religion is the 
very [summit of absurdity. Hear his language — 44 But if 
there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not 



134 



DEBATE ON 



risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also 
vain." And further he says: "For if the dead rise, not, 
then is not Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your 
faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also 
which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this 

LIFE ONLY WE HAVE HOPE IN CHRIST, WE ARE OF ALL MEN 

most miserable." Now, this could not be so, if Uuniver- 
salism be true; for according to that system, the Christian 
religion makes people happy here, and has nothing what- 
ever to do with their happiness hereafter. But, 1 repeat, 
the Apostle argues that the profession of religion would 
be ridiculous folly— sheer madness, if there were no here- 
after and no resurrection of the dead. Let us hear him 
further to this point : "Why stand we in jeopardy every 
beari 9 ' — "What advantageth it me, if the dead rise no',* 1 
The meaning is, that if there be no resurrection of the 
righteous, then they act a very simple part in suffer- 
ing persecution for the cause of Christ. Let them take 
their pleasure, for their is no advantage in religion. 
Now, bear in mind, that the Apostle's great position is, 
that the whole of Christianity is a most miserable farce 
if there be no resurrection of the dead — that the cruel 
persecutions endured by himsolf and his fellow Chris- 
tians would indicate madness except for the rich re- 
ward they were to reap in the resurrection, and then you 
will see the force of his reasoning: "And as we [Chris- 
tians] have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also 
bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, 
[Christians,] that flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
dom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 
Behold, I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but 
we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of 
an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and 
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be 
changed: for this corruptible must put on incorruption 
and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this 
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mor- 
tal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought 
to pas the saying that is written, Death is swallowed in 
victory; O death, where is thy sting TO grave where is 
thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength 
of sin is the law. But thanks be to God which giveth us 
the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, 
my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always 



UN I VERS AL ISM. 



135 



abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know 

THAT YOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE LoKD." Thus he 

predicates his argument in favor of a resurrection, on the 
folly of religion without it. His reasoning is what logi- 
cians denominate the argumentum ad koiain- m. And he 
concludes by an exhortation to them, to persevere in good 
works and to endure with patience all persecution, inas- 
much as they were promised a glorious resurrection. 

It is obvious then, that Mr, Piugree has taken a passage 
written for the comfort of saints to encourage them under 
t rials by the hope of their resurrection, and has applied it 
to sinners! He has, in effect, said unto thenv u Eat and 
drink, for to-morrow you shall be raised to inherit the 
kingdom of God! Do not be like the foolish Christians, 
who are enduring persecution for a faith that will make 
them no better than you in a world to come! Continue in 
your sins: avoid the frown of men: shun the company of 
the despised Nazarenes: go on in your unrighteousness: 
and you shall be just as happy and as holy as the Chris- 
tians in the world to come!" This is the syren song of 
Cniversalism! Thus it lulls the ungodly to sleep. But 
the Apostle did not tell them so. Compare this chapter, 
with what I have already quoted from his Epistle to the 
Thessalonians, and you will see he is writing of the same 
event, only in the latter, he mentions the resurrection of 
the wicked. In both he speaks of the Savior's coming 
4 'with the trump of God, ,? and raising the dead (compare 
1 Cor. xv, 52, with 1 Thess. iv, 16,) but in the latter he tells 
us, that "the dead in Christ shall rise first;"" that when the 
wicked shall say : ''Peace and safety, then sudden destruc- 
tion cometh upou them, as travail upon a woman with 
child, and they shall not escape." In reference to the 
righteous he says: "Behold 1 show you a mysery; we 
shall uot all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a mo- 
ment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump : for 
the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised in- 
corruptible, and we shall be changed, (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52) 
In relation to the wicked he says: '*The Lord Jesus shall 
be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in naming 
fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and 
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the 
presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." 



136 



DEBATE ON 



How different is the condition of the wicked, in the morn- 
ing of the resu rrection, as given by Paul and Mr. Pingree by 
the pen of inspiration and by the dreams of Universalismf 

But I must proceed. The argument of Mr. P. from the 
resurrection fails in another point : the change effected in 
that great event is physical, not moral — is of the body and 
not; of the soul. Unless I have been wholly deceived in 
the terms of our proposition, Mr. Pingree is here to prove 
amoral change, and not a physical one: — that he asserts the 
ultimate holiness and salvation of ail men. Or are we to 
understand him to assert that the moral diseases of the 
soul are to be remedied by medicines which heal the body? 
That the- more vigorous and healthy the body, the more 
pure and hallowed the emotions of the soul? If so, let 
him speak out. He must prove that a change of body 
effects a change of soul, or this vaunted passage proves 
nothing for him. Now, I affirm, that he has not quoted 
the first passage of Scripture which remotely alludes to*a 
moral change after death. I deny that there is such a 
passage between the lids of the Bible. I admit a moral 
growth, but I deny a moral change after death. Mr. P. must 
attend to this point. He shall not evade it. It is what he 
came here to establish. And I am not to be put off by 
passages which, to admit all that he has claimed for them, 
only prove a change of body, as sufficient to show that the 
man dies a sinner and rises a saint; dies an infidel and rises 
a believer; dies an atheist and rises singing the praises of 
God!- This is the change he asserts; and it is to this I call 
his attention. Every one sees that Paul urges no such 
doctrine to the Corinthians. He is talking of the body, 
and not of the soul : "It is sown a natural body, it is 
raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there 
is a spiritual body." 

Mr. Pingree told you he would follow my example, and 
not notice any passage I might adduce until 1 commented on 
it. I do not remember, that I refused to notice any passage 
of his until he commented on it. True, he adduced, in his 
second speech, a passage which he said proved his doc- 
trine, and asked me for an explanation of it; this I declined 
giving, which drew forth a complaint from my friend. He 
thought I did wrong: but now, forsooth, he plumes himself 
in doing the very thing he condemned in me! "The case 
being altered, alters the case!" He also condemned my 



UN1VERSALISM. 



137 



quoting from Universalist authors; but he finds it necessary 
to himself, and, without a scruple or a blush, quotes ortho- 
dox writers by the half dozen! Very well. — He will find 
that I am not to be outdone. I will give him book for 
book. And as he has become convinced that it is not 
wrong to read from books, I will invite your attention to 
what Universalists have said. "He that hath ears to hear 
let him hear" how those whom Mr. Pingree claims as breth- 
ren, talk to him : I will Yead from Smith on the Divine 
Gov- eminent, a work that Mr. Pingree's paper has highly 
commended : 

" To the impenitent and obdurate sinner, who in the 
midst of light and knowledge, with clear conceptions of 
his duty, and strong convictions of his obligations to obey 
it, has lived without God in the world, violated the laws of 
morality and religion, outraged the best affections of the 
heart, and trampled on the dearest interest of mankind, 
there must be a day of awful retribution. Though we 
cannot conceive more nobly of the Deity, than to suppose 
that benignity constitutes the essence of his nature, yet, 
from this very circumstance, he must punish the wicked 
with a necessary degree of severity. They carry in their 
own breasts the sentence of condemnation: they feel with- 
in themselves a terrible consciousness, that, they must suf- 
fer the just judgment of their crimes, and the dictate of 
their heart is the voice of God, announcing to them their 
future destiny. They cannot be happy. Were a seat, 
prepared for them at the right hand of God, were angels 
and archangels, and the spirits of the just made perfect, to 
encircle them, and were the most rapturous joys of heaven 
offered to their acceptance, they would still be wretched. 
The very bosom of enjoyment would be to them a thorny 
pillow: for the turbulence of malignant passions would 
even there disturb their repose. Like those miserable 
pageants of grandeur, who live in gorgeous palaces, and 
whom earthly joys encircle, while some foul crime weighs 
heavy on their conscience, the paleness of whose cheek 
the surrounding splendor does but deepen, and whose quiv- 
ering lip moves but the more tremulously for the pleasure 
which invites their participation — anguish and dispair are 
in their hearts.'" 

Really this brother of my opponent would seem to ad- 
vocate the necessity of more than a bare physical change 



138 



DEBATE ON 



after death. But let us hear him discourse on. the solemn 
matters of the resurrection and the judgment to come : 

" With an evidence which no reasonable mind can resist" 
[will Mr. Pingree please hearken?] "and with deep and im- 
pressive solemnity, the Scriptures assure us, that after death 
cometh the judgment — that all mankind must appear before 
the tribunal of Jesus Christ — that they must be judged 
according to the deeds done in the body, whether they 
have been good or evil — that the virtuous of every nation, 
kindred, people, and religion, shall be admitted to a stace 
of pure and exalted happiness, where all their faculties 
shall be enlarged, where every object calculated to exer- 
cise and satisfy them shall abound, where every natural 
and moral imperfection, and therefore every painful sen- 
sation, shall be forever excluded, and where, exising in 
immortal vigour, they shall be continually rising higher 
and higher in the scale of excellence and enjoyment, till 
they attain a measure of both, which at present we can 
neither calculate nor comprehend. But they assure us, 
too," [once again I invite my opponent's attention] "that 
the wicked shall be doomed to a state of suffering, awful 
in its nature, and lasting in its duration — that they shall 
be excluded from I he habitations of the just — that between 
them and the virtuous a great gulf shall be fixed — that no 
song of joy shall be heard in these regions of remorse — 
that weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth shall be there, 
and that the recollections of the sins they have committed, 
the mercies they have abused, and the privileges they have 
lost, shall fill them with intolerable anguish," page 68. 

Let us hear another of those whom Mr. Pingree calls his 
brethren, or Universalists. I will quote from Petitpierre 
on "Divine Goodness :" 

"St. Peter remarks, [and I let Mr. Pingree's brother in 
the cause of Universalism, as he says, refute Mr. Pingree's 
exposition of this passage] — " St. Peter remarks, that 'if the 
righteous scarcely are saved, where shall the ungodly and 
the sinner appear?' as if he had said, if so many trials and 
afflictions are necessary for the salvation of the just, of 
those who have acquired the habits of virtue, and are sin- 
cerely attached to their duty; how great and terrible both 
in degree and duration will the sufferings be, which are 
reserved for those, whom long habits of sin have corrupted 
and hardened? With what just abhorrence should it fill 



UNIVERSALIS]*!. 



139 



us for sin, that fatal enemy of our peace, that tyrant of 
the soul, from whom it will require such dreadful suffer- 
ings to free us! The Gospel, that dispensation of mercy, 
which was given that we might flee from the wrath to 
come; that ineffable gift of the only begotten son of God, 
whereby whosoever believeth ill him should not perish, 
but have everlasting life, however compassionate to the 
penitent offender, speaks nothing but terror and alarm to 
the guilty and hardened sinner. How striking, how awful, 
and at the same lime how merciful, are the representations 
of future torments! Let us collect the leading features of 
the striking picture, and we shall see that it is indeed 'a 
fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.' It 
is represented under the figure of perishing, of being cast 
into outer darkness, of a worm that never dies, of a fire 
that is never quenched, of a lake which burnetii with fire 
and brimstone, into which the wicked shall be cast; and 
where they shall perish eternally. And though neither the 
word perish is here to be understood as a total extinction 
of being; nor can that of. eternal imply endless duration; 
nevertheless they are undoubtedly employed to signify- 
bitter anguish, deep and durable distress, which can be 
only terminated by a total change in the disposition of the 
sufferer." Page 26. 

And let us hear once more from another of his brethren. 
I now quote from White on ''Universal Restoration." 

"•Let him that denies hell take heed lest it be verified 
upon himself; we have as much for hell as we have for 
heaven," etc. Page 27. 

I hope you will duly heed [turning to Mr. Pingree] this 
affectionate warning of your brother White. It may be that 
he speaks an awful truth to you\ 

Mr. Pingree is certainly no ordinary disputant. When he 
does not find it convenient to reply to my arguments, he 
fancies such as I ought to use, and replies to them. He 
is quite an adept in such fancy warfare. I certainly did 
not once intimate that fire always meant punishment. 
Hence all he said about fires denoting purification some- 
times was sheer extra work. It had nothing whatever 
to do with any thing that I said; unless be meant that you 
should infer, that because it sometimes meant purification, 
that therefore it always had that meaning! With the same 
propriety, he might ask you to believe, that because the 



140 



DEBATE ON 



old world was destroyed by water, that therefore men are 
drowned in baptism! I took no such position as that fire 
was never used in the sense of purify. The gentleman 
seems to desire to be rid of my argument by dodging the 
passages I read. He seems afraid lest their fire should 
burn his fingers if he touches them. 

Mr. P. tried to amuse you with the anecdote of the Moor 
and Christian, and discanted at some length on those who 
had lived mere moral lives, and yet died and were lost ; 
while others who had lived immoral lives were converted 
and saved, etc. Such reasoning is but the ad cajttandum 
vulgus. I might retort: I could easily turn such guns 
against his system. I might show how his doctrine took 
Judas Iscariot to heaven before his Master whom he be- 
trayed ! That according to it, pious Noah was left here 
many years in sorrow, while the antideluvians for their 
wickedness were wafted on the waves of the deluge to the 
beatitudes of heaven ! That Lot, for his piety, was re- 
tained in this world of misery, while the inhabitants of 
Sodom and Gomorrah, for their beastly iniquities, were 
taken to heaven in a shower of brimstone and fire ! ! Aye, 
this doctrine congregates the most opposite characters in 
heaven ! There will be some curious meetings there ! 
There the man who has made gold his God ; who has 
ground the face of the poor ; who has coined the tears of 
wretchedness • taken the widow's mite and the orphan's 
pittance ; whose swindling under the color of law has rob- 
bed poverty of its last resource, and brought misery and 
starvation upon innocent and unsuspecting hundreds — such 
a man, will, perhaps, be the first to greet the victims of 
his merciless rapacity in the climes of bliss ! ! But 1 for- 
bear for the present. I choose to meet his argument, if it 
deserves to be so called, in another way. 

The wise man has said, that " fools make a mock at 
sin." What is sin? and what has it done ? It is a viola- 
tion of God's law. It is the cause of all the evils, moral 
and physical, which afflict the world ; and we stop too 
short in our estimate of the sinner's character, when we 
judge of it simply by what he does. He is under restraint. 
Providence, society, the laws of the land put a rein upon 
his disposition to carry out the fiendish purposes of his 
soul. No sinner does all the evil he would like to do and 
which his heart prompts him to do. In the estimate of 



U N I V E 11 S A L I S M . 



14! 



his character then, we ought to lake into account his dis- 
position to do— what he would accomplish if all restraints 
were removed, and he left free and unfettered to act out 
the promptings of his nature. Thus we act in everything. 
Maj. Andre, was executed by the patriots of our revolu- 
tion, not so much for the injury which he actually inflicted 
on our country, as for what he would have done ; and 
what, if unpunished, his example would have led others 
to do. The farmer does not wait until his corn is destroy- 
ed by the weeds, before he kills them. No ; but believing 
that they would do it, he destroys them before they can 
accomplish it. It is not because the young snake has 
stung any one to death, that we crush its head beneath 
our heel ; but because we know its poisonous nature, and 
that it may and can kill and destroy. Now apply this test 
to the sinner : — one of Mr. P.'s honorable and moral men, 
if you please ; but yet who is in love with sin ; whose 
heart is under its influences. True, he may not have 
committed any outrages upon society, but God sees the 
heart-— it is prone to evil and that continually ; and from 
that he estimates the character. If he covets any thing 
belonging to his neighbor, he is a thief; and but for the 
restraints thrown around him, he would take it. If he hate 
his brother or neighbor, he is a murderer; and if un- 
checked, he wouldput him to death. God sees not as man 
seeth. We are deceived by external appearance — a fair 
show in the flesh imposes upon our judgment. God's all- 
searching eye penetrates the flimsy exterior of the painted 
hypocrite, and the deep and dark places of every heart is 
open and plain before him. 

The sinner hates the law of God — he would destroy it, : 
and the violations of it have caused all the woe and misery 
under which the earth has groaned from the fall of Adam 
to the present hour. It has loaded every breeze with the 
sighs and made every hill echo the groans of suffering 
mankind. 64 The sweetest and the strongest ties of life 
have been rudely and ruthlessly torn ass under. Lewdness 
has changed the world into a lazarhouse of corruption ; 
and anticipated the work of death and the grave. Deceit 
and fraud have mocked human expectation, tortured con- 
fidence, and hurried their miserable victims to beggary, 
despair, and death. Rage and revenge have plunged the 
midnight dagger in the unsuspecting bosom of the neigh- 



DEBATE ON 



bor and the friend ; and in their sanguinary progress have 
multiplied widows and orphans, childless parents and help- 
less mourners, without number and without end. Ambition 
has turned the earth into a stall of butchery and of blood, 
and covered its surface with the bones of men: while ty- 
ranny, like the Nubian blast, has spread decay and death 
in the ranks of the unhappy millions found in its course — 
withering the last remains of comfort and hope, and Con- 
verting provinces and kingdoms into scenes of desolation 
and woe.'"* Sin which has brought all this misery 
upon the world is the controlling principle in the breasts 
of those whom Mr. P. has presented to you for sympathy 
and esteem. But we must not stop here. Let us ask what 
would be the ravages of the same spirit, goaded on by the 
same passions, unrestrained in its desires, and unfettered 
in its powers, and turned loose upon other worlds than 
this ? The law of God, that golden chain which binds all 
created intelligences to the throne of God and to one an- 
other, would be sundered forever ; and hatred and malice, 
instead of love, would be the controlling principles in all 
minds ! Those bright and holy orders, angels and arch 
angels, cherubim and seraphim, that now " adore and burn" 
in the presence of the eternal, would be hurled out of 
heaven ! Every celestial harp would be silenced, the song 
of the redeemed would be rudely hushed, and moral deso- 
lation, disease, and death would prevail, where now all is 
happiness, holiness and life ! Instead of the harmony 
which now marks the course of suns and systems wheeling 
on " adamantine spheres through the void immense," cho- 
atic, frenzied, reckless confusion, " the wreck of matter 
and the crush of worlds, " would break with " horrible dis- 
cord" upon every ear! In a 1 word, God would be de- 
throned, and the universe in ruins! Such would be the 
career of every sinner, if empowered and permitted to 
carry out the unhallowed promptings of a heart hostile to 
God. It is the right — it is the duty of every govern- 
ment to punish those who are at open war with it ; and 
who propose to subvert its principles and its laws, and to 
introduce anarchy and misrule in its stead. And this is 
what sin proposes to do in the government of God.* It will 
not do then to mock at it — to speak of it as a light and 



* Dr- Dvvight 



UNIVERSALIS]*!. 



143 



trivial matter. The sinner of every grade is a traitor to 
all that is holy, just and good. He is in arms against the 
government of the Most High. He feels uncompromising 
hostility towards, and is waging an exterminating warfare 
not only upon the principles, but upon the good and legal 
subjects of the Divine administration. His then is the 
traitor's cause, and his, in right and justice, must be the 
traitor's doom ! So much for little sinners, 

Mr. Pingree attempted to be facetious at the position, that 
the man retained after, the moral character he had in, death ; 
and says, he supposes then if a man dies drunk, he will 
remain drunk through all eternity ! Really I had suppo- 
sed that the appetite for strong drink was animal and not 
moral; and I beg leave to insist that I am right in this 
supposition, the ponderous authority of the gentleman to 
the contrary notwithstanding. And all that I contended 
for, and which 1 hope he will squarely meet (for he mani- 
fests a disposition to dodge it) was, that if the man died 
with his moral faculties so corrupt as to lead him, in con- 
tempt of God's law, to gratify the beastly appetite of 
drunkenness, I was bound to believe that these faculties 
would remain unchanged through eternity — that I knew of 
no passage of Scripture teaching their change after death, 
and demanded of Mr. Pingree, if such a passage existed, 
to produce it: or if he had no scriptural authority for his 
position, to explain on reasonable and philosophical prin- 
ciples how this moral change was to be effected without 
moral means ; and if the Gospel had been inadequate to 
the change of the man in this life, what more powerful 
means had been provided to effect his change in the life to 
come. All of this Mr. Pingree has declined to do, and we 
are bound to infer that he had the best reasons for it — Tic 
could not respond. I beg he will not forget again, that my 
position is, that the moral disposition which prompts to the 
violation of God's law in the indulgence of the animal ap- 
petite of drunkenness, if predominant in death, will remain 
unchanged in eternity. 

But my opponent told you, that Univeasalists do not say 
that salvation is confined to this life. Here is a book which 
he told me contained a fair representation of their doctrine- 
It is called " Plain Guide to Universalism." Now hear 
what this writer says : — 

"Now the truth is, we do not read one word in the 



144 



DEBATE ON 



Bible about saving men erom punishment in the future 
state. Jesus was anxious to save people from their sins, 
and their errors, and to bring them to a knowledge of the 
truth. He was anxious to save the Jews from the awful 
judgments which were impending over them, and all the 
Apostles partook of the same solicitude. Paul says, (Gal. 
i. 4,) that Jesus gave himself for our sins, that he might 
deliver us from i6 this present evil world." The evils 
from which Jesus came to save men are in this world, 
and for this reason he came into this world to save 

THEM." pp. 253-4. 

This is too plain to need comment ; and shows that Uni- 
versalism teaches just what I said it did. And I think the 
gentleman will generally find that I know what 1 am talking 
about. Besides, I have shown already that he himself 
holds and teaches this very doctrine. But enough : he 
must be strangely bewildered in the mazes of his system, 
to lose sight of his " Plain Guide." 

Mr. P. insists that the doctrine that punishment is solely 
inflicted for the good of the sinner, is one of the plainest 
doctrines of the Bible. I feel that it will be waste of time 
to notice this matter further. The arguments which I 
have hitherto adduced remain untouched. And to show 
you how deceitfully the word of God has been handled ; 
you remember Mr. P. quoted Heb. xii. 6 — 11, " For whom 
the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son 
whom he receiveth," etc. Now this passage is applicable 
to the saints alone — to those who " are the children of 
God by faith," and yet Mr. P. quoted it as applicable to the 
wicked, with whom God is "angry every day ! V This is 
a fair specimen of his manner of dealing with the Scrip- 
tures on this point. I cannot then waste time in making 
an exposure of such trifling. But if he is disposed to try 
his hand in proving that all punishment is for the reforma- 
tion of the sinner, and will not, because he cannot, answer 
what I have already adduced on this point, I will give him 
another passage or two : Eev. xvi. 10, 11 — " And the fifth 
angel poured out his vial on the seat of the beast ; and his 
kingdom was full of darkness ; and they gnawed their 
tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of Heaven, because 
of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their 
deeds !" Now, if God intended this punishment for their 
reformation, and Mr. P. affirms that he did, then the Al- 



N IVERSALISM. 



145 



mighty failed in his purpose. He intended to produce one 
result, and produced the very reverse of it ! The Scrip- 
tures abound in similar instances, and we see correspond- 
ing examples in the conduct of sinners in our every day's 
observation, and Universalism says that God is inflicting 
this punishment for men's reformation, when it produces 
the very opposite effect ! — the Almighty "cannot do the 
tilings that he would." 

You were told that the Lord sent Jonah to hell. Now 
Mr. P. either knew or he did not, that the word in the orig- 
inal there employed, was not claimed by any man of in- 
formation as necessarily implying a state of future pun- 
ishment. If he knew this, what shall we think of his 
morality in quoting it as if it was so claimed? And if he 
did not know it, then he ought not to engage in controver- 
sies of this kind. When the common version of the 
Scriptures was made, the English word hell did not so 
commonly mean a place of future torments as it does now. 
In the Greek of the New Testament, there are three words 
corresponding to the term hell in our English Bibles, viz: 
hades, Gehenna, and tartarus. The word sheol in the Old 
Testament corresponds to hades in the New, and is not 
claimed as necessarily implying torments in a future state. 
Among Jews and Pagans it meant that state into which the 
soul entered when it left the body. It was often used as 
we sometimes use the word grave — meaning the state of 
the dead. In Pagan mythology , hades had two apartments; 
—the Elysii Campi or Fields of the Blessed, where the 
souls of the virtuous dead enjoyed happiness; and Tartarus^ 
surrounded by impenetrable walls and by the impetuous 
and buring. streams of the river Phlegethon, where the 
impious and the guilty among mankind were punished. 
Among the Jews too, according to Josephus, a similar doc- 
trine prevailed in relation to hades. They supposed it was 
the place into which the soul enters when separated from 
the body. They supposed too that it contained two a- 
part.ments; the one above, called 44 Abraham's bosom," a 
place of happiness and light, into which the souls of the 
righteous entered: the other beneath, a place of darkness 
and anguish, into which the souls of the wicked entered. 
In the general sense of the state of the souls of the dead, 
it is sometimes used in the New Testament. Hence it is 
said, that the soul of Jesus was not left in Hades; that is, 
10 



146 



DEBATE ON 



it would not remain in a state separate from the body: 
And understood in this sense it is represented as destroyed. 
That is, the souls of the dead, at the last day, will be uni- 
ted with bodies again. All that we contend for is, that it 
generally means the state of the soul after death, and that 
there may he punishment in that state. This is clearly 
taught in Luke xvi. 19—31 ; " There was a certain rich man 
who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sump- 
tuously every day : and there was a certain beggar named 
Lazarus who was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desir- 
ing to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich 
man's table : moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores. 
And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried 
by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also 
died and was buried, and in hell [hades'] he lifted up his 
eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and 
Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father 
Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he 
may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue: 
for lam tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, son, 
remember that thou in thy life time receivedst thy good 
things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is 
comforted and thou art tormented. And besides all this, 
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed ; so that 
they which would pass from us to you, cannot; neither 
can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then 
he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst 
send him to my father's house; for I have five brethren; 
that he may testify unto them, lest they come into this 
place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have 
Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he 
said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from 
the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they 
hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- 
suaded though one rose from the dead." 

Universalists are reduced to great straits by this passage, 
and have agonized much over it! All their attempts at 
explanation faih They give most contradictory and curi- 
ous interpretations of it! Mr. Ballou (who if he had not 
come, my friend Mr. P. would not have been — what he now 
is) tells us that it is a sheer fable! That there is no place 
of torment after death! That the idea of a dead man's 
being tormented was but the monstrous abortion of Jewish 



UN 1 VERBALISM, 



147 



superstition ! That Jesus Christ used this pernicious false- 
hood of the Jews to inculcate the truth! Another Univer- 
salist writer, whose conscience seems not at all eased of 
the burden of this passage by Mr. Ballou's explanation of 
it, has made an effort of his own to roll this weight off his 
mind. He tells us, with great gravity, that Lazarus was 
the Gentiles, who some how or other were full of sores and 
were licked by dogs, and who all died and were carried by 
angels to Abraham's bosom; and Abraham, he tells us, was 
the high priest : and it was in the high priest's bosom that 
all the dead Gentiles were stored away! The rich man 
was the Jews who also died in some way, and after death 
were tormented in some inexplicable way ! The five breth- 
ren are the five foolish virgins, mentioned by the {Savior 
elsewhere; but how those brethren became virgins he does 
not explain! [A laugh.] The great gulf, he says, was 
the wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, which, 
he says, is impassible and unalterable, although Paul says 
it has been broken down! I might adduce many other 
specimens of the absurd and ridiculous nonsense uttered 
by Universalists in their efforts to dispose of this very 
troublesome passage. But let these suffice. 

Now what are the facts upon which this parable is 
based? — 1st. That the pious, who are often poor and ne- 
glected here in this world, die, and are conveyed by an- 
gels to happiness and heaven. 2nd. That the wicked, who 
are often wealthy and surrounded with the good things of 
this life, die also, and go to a place of torment. And 3rd, 
That the righteous and the wicked are forever separated 
in the next estate. But we are told, that this is a parable: 
Grant that it is; it nevertheless is no fable. All the Sa- 
vior's parables are based upon facts that do, or may exist, 
They are never based upon mere dreams or falsehoods. 
For example; the parable of the lost sheep— It is a fact 
that there are such animals as sheep : there may be one 
hundred in a flock; it is not impossible for one to go astray, 
it is entirely probable that in such a case, the owner would 
leave the ninety-nine, and go in search of the one lost, 
and when he had found it would rejoice more over it than 
over the ninety and nine that had not been lost. This is 
true of all the parables— they are all based on what mail 
occur ; not one of them is based upon what is impossible io 
be true. The Universalists in this parable will grant that 



143 



DEBATE ON 



it is a fact that some rich men are wicked, and that some- 
poor men are pious. They will admit also that the rich 
and poor, the wicked and the righteous, all die. Thus far 
they must admit the Savior has based his parable on truth. 
Nay, they will not deny but that the righteous are " com- 
forted" after death; that they are admitted into the asso- 
ciation of the just, with Abraham etc. Thus far too, they will 
grant the parable has truth for its basis. But here they 
pause. They say it is wholly false that a wicked man dies 
and in hades " lifts up his eyes being in torments," that it 
is false that he is "tormented" or is in a "place of tor- 
ments" after death!! So they reason, and so they charge 
falsehood upon the Son of God! But more of this, when 
we shall hear from Mr. P. In due time you shall hear our 
views on the words Gehenna and Tartarus. 

Mr. P. argues, if I understand him, that under the Mo- 
saic economy, the Jews who "died without mercy under 
two or three witneses" in that way received "a just re- 
compense of reward" for their worst transgressions; and 
that for "every transgression and disobedience" they re- 
ceived a just recompense of reward" in this life; that it 
consequently would be unjust to punish them in the life 
to come; and he argued that if the Gospel brought in as a 
sorer punishment," eternal torments, then the Gospel 
was a curse and not a blessing. Now all this is easily met 
and exposed. The Mosaic law had the promise of the life 
that now is; not of that which is to come. Its rewards 
and punishments were proportioned to this life. A law 
that takes cognizance only of this life, if violated is justly 
satisfied by a temporal punishment; if observed, can only 
give temporal rewards. This was true of the law of Moses; 
;he ceremonial economy under which the Jews lived. But 
the moral law, which belongs to all nations, and to all 
worlds, in its principles demanding not only an external but 
an internal observance of its precepts, must be fulfilled in 
every jot and tittle, and until this is done, the violator is 
'jnder its curse. Now God proposes through the mediation 
of his Son, who magnified the law and made it honorable, 
to save men from the curse of the law. If they reject 
ihis proposition, they aggravate their guilt, and pull down 
additional wrath upon their heads. Such is the reasoning 
of Paul to the Hebrews. In other words: — A temporal 
,rovernment can inflict only corporal punishments; a moral 
government can inflict only spiritual punishments. If Mr. 



TJNi VERS ALI SM. 



149 



P. will only keep this distinction in view, the mists and 
darkness that now envelope his understanding will disap- 
pear, as the morning vapor and the early dew melt away 
before the sun in his strength. 

In relation to Mr. P's, inquiry respecting the salvation 
of infants and idiots, I hesitate not to avow my belief thai 
they are all saved through Jesus Christ. There is but one 
opinion on this subject in the Orthodox world. But he 
asks, are the heathen saved? I will too ask him one ques- 
tion, Does he believe that the heathen are saved in this 
world? Are they saved from sin in this life? If not, 
where and when does Universalism propose to save them? 
If they are not saved from sin before death, I frankly con- 
fess, that I know not when or how they are saved; and 
Mr. P. positively refuses to throw any light upon the sub- 
ject. I do not assert that they all die in their sins; but i 
do assert most emphatically, that if they do thus die, Mi*. 
P. has not shown how they get out of their sins after death; 
and until he does this, I am bound to believe they will be 
punished, for he says that punishment necessarily follows 
sin, and if sin goes into the next world, according to his 
own showing, punishment must gcrwith it. He has found 
no authority for arresting it, and keeping it in the prison 
of this world, unless he detains sin here too. So after ail, 
this case of the heathens is a very ugly matter for the 
Universalists. The Scriptures speaking of them say, they 
are "filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wicked- 
ness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, 
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of 
God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, 
disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant 
breakers, without natual affection, implacable, unmerci- 
ful;" and Universalism asserts that dying in this state they 
are saved, it does not profess to tell or know how! That 
they die ignorant of God, in love with idolatry, and foul 
with every sin; and that in a moment, in the twinkling of 
an eye, without the impartation of an idea, without the 
spirit of God, without the bath of regeneration, they rise 
knowing and loving God, hating idols; — washed from every 
tsin and as pure as the angels of light! Now I cannot be- 
lieve all this without some better testimony than mere 
round assertion. I cannot venture so far into the dark., 
unexplored territories ol the spirit land without some lamp 



150 



DEBATE ON 



to my feet, some light to my path. And mere earthly 
light will not do, or I might take the brilliant coruscations 
of Mr. P's. fancy. But I want the light of heaven — of the 
Scriptures. I will not go one step without it. If then Mr. 
P. says that none of the heathen are saved from their sins 
on earth — that they all die wicked and polluted and im- 
penitent, then I adopt the consequences of the Bible; they 
cannot see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. Here 
the Bible leaves all such, and hear I leave them. I will 
not — I dare not go further. 

Mr. P. has several times quoted such passages as these ; "as 
by one man's transgression many were made sinners," " as 
in Adam all die." Now I respectfully ask, and I wish a 
categorical answer — Does he believe in the fall of man 
at all? Are not all men in the SAME moral C0ND1T0N 
that Adam was when created? But I must close. 

['MR. PINGREE'S SEVENTH SPEECH.] 

Respected Auditors : My first duty, this morning, is- 
to refer to the arguments already adduced to establish the 
proposition, that the Scriptures do "teach the ultimate 
holiness and happiness of all men." 

The first argument was derived from the nature and 
character of God and his relationship to man. The argu- 
ment from this character of God, is, that he will not in- 
flict endless torture upon his children, to whom his infinite 
benevolence and love extend. 

The second argument was from the declaration in the 8th 
of Romans, that " the creature" there spoken of, which is- 
the whole human creation, "shall be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons 
of God." Mr. Waller's first remark on this was that the 
v/ord "creature" included more than man, viz: stocks and 
stones, and all the visble creation. He afterwards thought 
it meant " the intelligent creation." I will read the opin- 
ion of Dr. Lightfoot, etc.. as found in the commentary of 
Dr. Clarke on the passage, " There is," says he, " a two- 
fold key hanging at this place, which may unlock the- 
whole, and make the sense plain and easy. 1 . The first 
is trie phrase, pasa he Itisis, which we render the whole 
creation, ver. 22, and with which we meet twice elsewhere 
:n the New Testament, Mark xvi. 15: Preach the Gospel, 
vase te ktlsei, to every creature ; and Col. i. 23 : The Gospel 
was preached, en pase te ktisei, to every creature. Now it is- 



UNIVERSALISM. 



151 



sufficiently apparent what is meant by pasa Idisis in both 

these places, viz. all nations, or the heathen world 

And this very phrase in this place lays claim to that very 
interpretation," etc. — Dr. Clarke on Rom. viii. 19. 

I need not read the whole. He says the " creature" 
embraces all nations. That is enough. But it does not 
depend on authority. The passage itself — its language — 
isjexplicit and clear, and requires this interpretation, and 
no other. The same " creature,'''' whether more or less, 
that "was made subject to vanity," etc., "shall be deliver- 
ed." If any therefore are not delivered, they are those 
who were not " made subject to vanity." I know Paul after- 
wards says, as distinct from the " whole creation," " and 
not they on 1 ]) but we ourselves" etc.; but this does not ex- 
clude the " creation." 

Again, the third argument was from the 5th of Romans, 
where we learn that all have sinned ; as " there is none that 
doeth good, no not one," and that by sin " death has passed 
upon all men;" and that as through one many are dead, 
(that is all are dead,) so through one all shall be saved— as 
many shall be saved as die; that is, "all men." — Nothing 
has been said to set aside this argument. 

My fourth argument was founded on the promises of 
Scripture, that Christ will " reconcile all things to God." 
The whole world will finally be reconciled; and if recon- 
ciled, then saved. This is the declared purpose of God. I 
then argued that what God designs, will be accomplished; 
and that Christ is not like the man that began to build a 
tower, and could not finish it. Reading passages not con- 
taining the word salvation or saved, about which terms Mr, 
W. might start a question, I simply put the inquiry, Do you 
believe God will damn eternally those of whom he says, 
they "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption 
into the glorious liberty of the sons of God?" If delivered, 
are they not saved ? Will he endlessly damn men after 
they are reconciled to him? Certainly he will not. If re- 
conciled, they are saved. 

My fifth argument was founded on the fact that God 
wills the salvation of all men. In connection with this, 
was the declaration, full and explicit, that " God is the 
Savior of all men." He wills the salvation of all mankind; 
and he "doeth his will:" none can resist him. He does 
his pleasure: none can withstand his power. If it is de- 
nied that the terms " all men" embrace all men, really, 1 



152 



DEBATE ON 



will prove it by other means. If it is denied that this will 
of God is a will of purpose, I will also prove that it is. If 
it be only a desire, according to Mr. Waller's doctrine, 
then, if all men shall never be saved, God must possess am 
eternally ungratified desire!! 

In relation to the other passage, declaring God to be 
"the Savior of all men," I have called for one thing, 
from which God saves all men in the present life. Does 
any one say he is now the Savior of all? Where is the 
thing in this life, from which all are saved? Nothing, ab- 
solutely nothing. It must then be a final salvation; and 
that to be enjoyed by " all men." 

My sixth argument was founded on the declaration of 
Christ, that in the resurrection, men " shall be as the an- 
gels of God in heaven;" and the declaration of St. Paul, 
in 1 Corinthians xv., that all who die in Adam shall be made 
alive in Christ. All men shall be raised to incorruption, 
immortality, and glory. 

My seventh argument is founded on the prospective fact 
of the destruction of all the enemies of man, by Christ;— 
the Devil and his works; sin, and the grave ; with death 
"the last enemy :" all shall be destroyed. This last will 
be destroyed, by raising all men to an immortal life of 
happiness. 

Do we need more? Must I quote more texts of Scrip- 
ture? I might quote others; but are not these enough, if 
sustained? I shall not, at present, occupy time further in 
quoting passages and commenting on them. 

I shall now give the rest of my time entirely to an ex- 
amination of Mr. Waller's passages. I am not bound, log- 
ically, to do this, uutil he has set aside mine; but for the 
benefit of those who may not understand them, it may be 
proper for me to do so. 

I here pause to ask a favor. I do not mean to "dictate," 
but to ask it as a favor, that Mr. Waller do not introduce a 
great many passages at once. I have not time to examine 
a great many. He read in half an hour as many as would 
take ten hours to examine. Let him pick out the best, and 
strongest, and most explicit, and take his position as to the 
question; and if I do not set them aside, 1 will give up the 
point; or at least, acknowledge my ignorance of their 
meaning. I know I may be ignorant of some ofthem. I do 
not profess to "understand all mysteries;" but I shall endea- 



UNI VER SALISM. 



153 



vor to explain them; and if I fail, the fault will be — some- 
where, besides in my doctrine. 

I shall now pass briefly over the last speech of Mr. Wal- 
ler, and notice the points he made, establishing the Scrip- 
ture doctrine of a judgment, the two kinds of resurrection, 
and then notice the passages he introduced. His first 
remark was that the whole of 1 Corinthians xv. refers only 
to the resurrection of the just; while I appeal to any one 
who read the passage, whether it is so. Where is the evi- 
dence of it ? He might perhaps tell us it is because the 
Epistle was written to the Church, and the saints. This 
is, I know, a common cavil — a common quibble upon such 
subjects. Try it : says Paul to the Corinthians, in the 
second Epistle, chap, v., " We must all appear before the 
judgment seat of Christ" — a passage quoted to prove a 
general judgment for all men. If stress is laid on the 
word " we," mark you, whether good or bad, the meaning 
must be carried out; and none are concerned in the judg- 
ment, but the saints! So also in relation to the resurrec- 
tion, in 1 Cor. xv. What will he do with me, or you, 
or any man living, unless the term embraces all men? 
Away with such narrow interpretations of Scripture! It 
applies to all men, Another passage — Heb. ii. 3 — " How 
shall we escape," etc. ? Will Mr. Waller confine this to 
the saints alone, because addressed to them? Are the 
plainest declarations of general doctrines, in the Word of 
God, all to be confined to the church at Corinth? What 
will Mr. Waller do? He calls himself a saint, I suppose; 
but he was not one of the saints of Corinth. The prom- 
ises were addressed to them — not to the saints in Warsaw, 
They have no part nor lot in it, if that is the way the lan- 
guage is to be restricted. 

What does the passage say itself ? — "As in Adam all 
die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." This is the 
key to the whole passage. If there are any that shall not 
be saved, they are those that do not die in Adam. What 
is meant by " all" ? Oh! it means the saints that die in 
Adam! Does Paul say so? He says "all." Do only the 
saints die ? 

True, we have a " resurrection of the just, and of the 
unjust," from Acts xxiv. 15. 1 believe in a resurrection of 
the just and of the unjust. Paul says he had hope of this. 
He hoped for the resurrection of the just and the unjust. 
Suppose the consequences to be as Mr. Waller says; would 



154 



DEBATE ON 



Paul "hope" for it? Would he wish the resurrection of 
those who are doomed to future and endless perdition ? 
This would be as bad as Tertullian, who said how he 
would exult, how laugh, when he found himself with the 
righteous in heaven, and witnessed the sufferings of his 
enemies in Hell! Tertullian was the first known in the 
Christian church to preach the doctrine. He hoped for the 
resurrection of the unjust, to continue unjust, that he might 
°.njoy their sufferings! Was this the benevolent PauPs 
'•'hope"? It is afterwards taught in the 15th of Corin- 
hians, how and with what body we are raised; spiritual, 
ncorruptible, immortal, glorious. But I have said enough 
>n this point. 

He quotes the phrase, " resurrection of damnation," etc.; 
•md says that " resurrection" means resurrection. He is 
autious, certainly. There is no dispute as to what the 
yvord is. But it does not always mean the same thing. Tt 
is admitted by all that in 15 Cor. it is a resurrection to 
immortal life. Jesus Christ used the same word, rendered 
" resurrection." That is admitted. But about the passage 
Mr. Waller refers to, there is a dispute. I will give an 
example of the figurative use of the word. In Luke ii., 
it is said by Simeon, of Christ, " Behold this child is set 
for the falling and rising again of many in Israel." This 
does not mean the rising of the literally dead. Though 
the same word (anastasis) is used in the original, that is 
translated "resurrection" elsewhere. I suppose Mr. Wal- 
ler will not say this is the resurrection to immortality, that 
Simeon speaks of. 

If Mr. Waller says the righteous only have the resur- 
rection spoken of in 15 Cor., because the Epistle was ad- 
dressed to the church, it cannot apply to any saint being 
in Warsaw, in the 19th century. He says moreover that 
the chapter relates not to any change of soul, but a mere 
change of body. Says Paul, " corruption shall not inherit 
incorruptionP If there be a corrupt soul, therefore, it 
shall not inherit an incorruptible body. The language 
relates to the whole man, as such. Hoiv are the dead 
raised up, and with what body shall we rise ? is the ques- 
tion. Paul does not speak of the body merely, or the soul, 
as such. He does not write metaphysically; but speaks of 
men— all men, as mortal, dying creatures, to enjoy a re- 
surrection to immortal life. 

A moral change after death is denied by Mr. Waller; 



UNIVERSALISM. 



155 



but he admits a physical change. He says the drunkard 
will not have that bodily appetite to drink, but that the 
disposition to be a drunkard remains, although the appetite 
to drink is gone! He has got an incorruptible body, as 
proved from 15 Corinthians : If he retains however the 
disposition to get drunk, the Devil who is his keeper will 
certainly accommodate him in that respect, and furnish 
him with the liquor! So he may remain drunk to all eter- 
nity; because the evil appetite with which a man dies will 
remain to all eternity; and men will carry out their evil 
dispositions forever, according to the doctrine referred to. 
So it will be with all other sins. 

I say there is an absolute necessity of a great moral 
change after death. I urge it upon you — "all are gone 
out of the way; there is none that doeth good" — "no man 
liveth and sinneth not," says the Bible. If the Pagans are 
all sinners, they are all lost: they die idolaters, and must 
remain idolaters forever, in Hell! So with all infants and 
idiots. They die ignorant, imperfect, impure — not fit for 
heaven : they have indeed no real moral character ; not Jit 
for the abode and purity and bliss, nor deserving of Hell: 
what will be their destiny'? They will remain hung up 
forever, between Hell and Heaven! will they not, on this 
principle? 

Carry out the principle of this doctrine. Where is there 
a man who dies fit for heaven? — 1 mean in moral charac- 
ter, entirely fit for a world of bliss and glory, without a 
change in death, or after? Look at the strife between 
Christian sects — between pious, learned, and great men. 
Do the mass of professed Christians agree one with anoth- 
er ? are they morally in a suitable state for heaven ? Is 
this strife suitable 1 I presume they are good men; or at 
least, it is so believed by themselves, and by the world; 
but look at the strife between the best Christians, one with 
another. Can they dwell in peace and harmony in heaven, 
unless they are morally changed after death ? Look at the 
Methodists for example; how they are divided into oppos- 
ing ranks. Will they not need a moral change, before 
they can dwell together in heaven? Look at the Baptists, 
The close communion Baptists cannot commune at the 
table of their Lord with other sects of Baptists. They 
unchurch and exclude from this rite, all not immersed. 
Now suppose the Sprinklers should go to heaven. Neither 
of the antagonists, we will suppose, is changed. They 



156 



DEBATE ON 



have carried to heaven the same moral tempers they had 
here : how can they agree together!? Heaven is not par- 
titioned off for all the sects; some Roman Catholics, and 
some Protestants, etc.; and this strife has continued for 300 
years. Sincere professors of religion are involved in 
dissension one with another. What will they do in heaven, 
unless changed 1 There is an absolute necessity for a 
change after death. Not a soul lives that can be the same 
in heaven : no man dies entirely fit for the perfect purity 
of the life to come. 

Mr. Waller referred to Thessalonians, where it is said, 
" the dead in Christ shall rise first." In reference to what, 
and to whom is this said 1 Is it said in reference to the 
just, as distinguished from the unjust ? Is that it 1 No, we 
that are alive shall not " prevent" or go before them that 
are dead. That is, the dead shall rise first, '* in Christ," 
and then those who are alive are to be changed. It is not 
that the righteous shall " rise first," and then the wicked. 
So the force of the passage, as he applied it, is lost. There 
is not a word about the resurrection of the unjust, as a 
distinct resurrection from that of the just. Men are not 
divided in this manner; — all will rise at once, and all in 
one state. 

I do not find fault with Mr. Waller for reading Univer- 
sal ist authors. He may read as many as he pleases. But 
I refuse to be responsible for all the sentiments, all the 
things and all the doctrines, that he may bring up here from 
other sources, which have nothing to do with the question 
we proposed to discuss. But so far as the doctrine of uni- 
versal salvation is concerned, he may show any thing which 
has a bearing on it. They all agree upon that doctrine, 
though they may differ about minor matters, that are not 
before us. I admit Dr. Southwood Smith believed in future 
punishment. Many Univeisalists in times past believed in 
future punishment. Their opinions have been read. I 
have no objection. You may make the most you can of 
them, and he may do the same. But, let it be remembered, 
that is not the question before us. 

He attempted to retort to my referring to the doctrine 
he advocates, as having the effect of sending some of the 
worst men to heaven, and the best to Hell, by saying that 
Universalism would keep Noah here in Hell while the 
Antediluvians went to heaven. Who said that Noah was 
in Hell here? Nobody, except Partialists. 



UNIVERSALIS]*!. 



157 



It shocks him much that wicked men should get to heav- 
en. Is there any thing in this so very shocking? What 
does Mr. Waller preach for ? What, but to make the wick- 
ed repent, that they may go to heaven — to make the man 
who hates his brother, love him ? If not, his preaching is 
not worthy of the Gospel; for it is the object of the Gos- 
pel to bring those who are far apart, near together; — and 
so we teach. Yet the promise of the accomplishment of 
the thing for which all the Orthodox pray and labor, shocks 
him! He thinks it a shocking idea that Judas should go 
to heaven before his Master whom he betrayed, even if 
he did, which is not asserted; that is, that Judas should be 
morally changed, and be fit for heaven. We teach that it 
shall be finally accomplished. By the blessing of God it 
will come to pass, through his goodness and grace. And 
this is belter than to take a man whose days have been 
spent in righteousness, and for one sin, hurl him with the 
besom of destruction into endless Hell-horrors, as the 
doctrine of Mr. Waller does. That is not what we believe 
is the purpose of God; but to bring all men together — 
the oppresser and the oppressed, and cause them all to 
love God and one another. That is the glory of our Holy 
Religion. But my friend is shocked at this! 

All that talk about making a mock at sin — What is it in- 
troduced for? Nobody here is making a mock at sin. Sin 
is a disease; and God will purge it out, and make sinners 
holy and pure. We all agree about the evil of sin. Hence 
all that disquisition on sin is not necessary to be noticed in 
this argument: it has no place in this discussion. 

He referred to some place where the punishment inflict- 
ed for sin did not have the effect to reform the sinner. I 
have a passage in my mind, Levit. xxvi. I will read it. And 
upon this point, the people who were said to be afflicted in 
Revelation, and who blasphemed, were not at that time re- 
formed. Hence he argues that they never were reformed 
at any subsequent time. This is the whole argument, and 
if amounts to nothing; for the conclusion does not follow. 
What is not accomplished at a certain j?eriod, may be after- 
wards. Levit. xxvi. 18. "And if ye will not yet for all this' 
hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more 
for your sins.'" It then goes on detailing the punishments 
to be inflicted; and again, v. 21, "and if ye walk contrary 
to me, and will not hearken unto me, I will bring severa 
times more plagues upon you, according to your sins." 



358 



DEBATE ON 



These plagues are there detailed; and it is again repeated, 
if the punishment does not produce reform, if the people 
are still disobedient, still further and worse punishments 
are threatened; and this is several times repeated. But 
when they are finally reformed by these sufferings, the 
punishment ceases, and they are to be blessed and happy. 
In the latter portion of the chapter it reads, " If they shall 
confess their iniquity, and they then accept of the punish- 
ment of their iniquity, then will I remember my covnant 
with Jacob, and also my covnant with Isaac, and also my 
covenant with Abraham will I remember : and I will re- 
member the land." So it goes on; and so throughout the 
Scriptures, wherein punishment for the time does not ef- 
fect the reform intended. But if he finds where punish- 
ment is extended to eternity, it might have some bearing 
on the point. These do not, because where punishment is 
inflicted in this life, it cannot be said at any one point of 
time that it will never have the desired effect. 

He says the chastening for the soul's profit, declared in 
Hebrews, which I referred to, applies only to the saints. 
Then it was to make the holy partakers of God's holiness; 
and yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness to the 
righteous! Why wish saints punished for their good, 
when they sin, more than common sinners? For what pur- 
pose could that be done, except to gratify the malice of 
him who inflicted punishment? But I have not time to ex- 
amine that passage in this speech. 

One fact is worthy to be remembered; that Sheol in the 
Old Testament, and Hades in the New, are synonymous 
words. This is nothing new to Mr. Waller; but may be 
so to some; and moreover does not mean endless damna- 
tion in the future life. So in the Bible, the passage' " the 
wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the nations that 
forget God," does not mean, as Mr. Waller says, endless 
damnation. 

Mr. Waller — I did not say so. 

Mr. Pingree— I understood that the wicked entered into 
Hades at death, and were afterwards taken out of Hades, 
and sent to Hell. So the good were taken out of Hades, 
and sent to heaven. If Hades is the place of damnation, 
" Abraham's bosom" is there, and Lazarus in Abraham's 
bosom — then Abraham is there in Abraham's bosom! I'll 
prove that Hades is not a place of endless damnation, if it 
nbe ot conceded. 



UNIVERSALIS!. 



16$ 



Mr. Waller — I said nothing about it. 

Mr. Pingree — We will pass on. It seems, then, accord- 
ing to Mr. Waller's previous remarks, that Jesus Christ 
adopted the Pagan notion of Hades.' I ask what did the 
Pagans know about Abraham's bosom ? The other de- 
partment, however, was Tartarus. The wicked went 
there; but both the good and wicked were to go to Hades. 

Now I ask what neii' doctrine did Christianity give us, 
if the Pagans had their Tartarus and their Abraham's bo- 
som, and Jesus Christ acknowledged the correctness of 
their notions ? Why send Missionaries to the Pagans? 
The Pagans had their Styx and Tartarus. What was the 
difficulty? Better to be a Pagan, and not have this new 
thing, which after all gives no new idea. 

Mr. Waller — Did I admit it was a Pagan notion ? 

Mr. Pingree — Yes; for where do you find such notions, 
except among the Pagans? Says Hosea, " O Death! I will 
be thy plagues: O! Grave, I will be thy destruction;" 
that is, Hades, or Sheol, (the same word with the Hades 
where the rich man went,) O Hades ! I will be thy de- 
struction. It is not therefore the place of endless punish- 
ment; for it shall be destroyed. 

Paul says, "O grave! where is thy victory ?" (the 
grave — Hades, where the rich man went.) If Hades be a 
place of endless misery, it has a great " victory" over God, 
and Christ, and holiness, forever! If it were the place of 
endless damnation for the souls of men, Jesus gained no 
victory over it. But it is not the place of endless damna- 
tion : you see it is not, in the light of these psssages. 
" Death and Hell {Hades) shall give up their dead," says 
John in the Revelation : they shall be destroyed, and shall 
deliver up what is in them. Whatever Hades is, therefore, 
whether with its literal or figurative signification, it is at 
last to be destroyed, and deliver up all that is in it. Wheth- 
er he admits it- is not eternal, or not, we prove by Scripture, 
that it has no victory over the souls of men. 

He admitted as to the Mosaic dispensation, that men un- 
der that had no promise except of the life that now is. 
Where then was there endless punishment ? In Rom. ii> 
12, it is declared that " as many as have sinned under the 
law, shall be judged by the law." Admitting that the law 
had only to do with this life, in the Mosaic dispensation, 
where is the endless punishment threatened in any law of 
God? They were judged "by the law." If the law does 



J 60 



DEBATE ON 



not deal with the immortal life, it is certain they would not 
by that law suffer endless punishment. 

He said the Gospel was delivered to Abraham, and to 
Adam and Eve in Paradise. Was it a Gospel of endless 
damnation? Let us see. "The seed of the woman shall 
bruise the serpent's heady " In the seed of Abraham, all 

THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH shall be BLESSED." That Was 

the Gospel preached to Adam and to Abraham. The de- 
struction of the serpent, and the blessing of all the nations 
of the earth. Men were to be punished by the law, but 
after that, there is a blessing for all. 

[mr. waller's seventh reply.] 
It appears that the long agony of Universalism is over! 
My friend has finished his argument! He has said all that 
he can say for his cause! Five or six of what he calls 
arguments, based upon sheer inference, have been adduced, 
and upon these he would have ungodly men build their 
hopes for heaven, although they should never repent and 
believe the Gospel! You have heard my answers. Ho 
has done a great deal of recapitulation. His last speech 
was scarcely any thing else but what he has hitherto said 
again and again. I shall not trouble myself to notice what 
I have already answered. Phrenologists say that the de- 
velopments of my head show that 1 have a good deal of 
combativeness and no small share of distructiveness about 
me. That may be; still I have very little of the old hero, 
who, as Dryden sings, 

" Thrice fought his battles o'er again, 

And thrice he slew the slain." 

I have no disposition to prey upon the dead. Mr. Pin- 
gree's arguments which I have hitherto answered, and for 
which he has such an affection that it seems he will never 
tire in repeating them, I will, therefore, leave without fur- 
ther remark. 1 am aware that my friend has taken some 
exceptions to my quoting poetry; but really when he an- 
nounced in his last speech that he was through, and I called 
to mind his great solicitude for this discussion, and the 
great ado made here and elsewhere by his friends because 
I was providentially prevented from meeting him last Fall, 
there was a line in an old Latin poet that seemed so perti- 
nent and appropos, that / must quote it : — 

" Parturient raontes, et nascetur ridiculus mus." 
But I will not translate it; of course Mr. Pingree will take 



UNIVERSALIS]*. 



161 



no exceptions, since those in the audience who do not un- 
derstand Latin, do no know its meaning. 

My principal business to-day, since all the arguments of 
Universalism have been adduced and answered, will be to 
lead on the phalanx of truth, and bear down with all its 
crushing weight upon the enemy's entrenchments. And I 
will try to be as benevolent and indulgent to the feelings 
of Mr. Pingree, as the nature of the case will admit. But 
1 find it extremely difficult to accommodate myself to his 
taste. You remember, that on the first day he complained 
of my not using the Scriptures; but now he complains that 
I use them too much ! He wants me to select a few of 
what I esteem strong texts! He asks me to do what I 
cannot. The Bible abounds with passages in our favor, 
and none of them are weak — not one. But 1 should be 
pleased to hear from him in relation to those already quot- 
ed. If he would bestow a little attention upon ihem, he 
would not be under the necessity of recapitulating so much, 
in order to fill out his time. 

Some time ago in this discussion, I forget when, I warn- 
ed the gentleman of deep water. I tell him again he 
should exercise great caution in his approaches to it. With 
most astonishing recklessness, he has plunged into Hades, 
Sheol, Abraham's bosom, Pagan notions, etc. I admire his 
daring, but I fear he will drown himself. He is already 
so near suffocation, that his brain reels under its influence, 
as I shall show. 

I never said or insinuated, that anastasis always meant 
the resurrection of the dead, and yet Mr. Pingree reasoned 
as if I did, and really almost ran himself into the absurdi- 
ty, that it never was used in reference to the dead at all! 
Now all I said was this, That certain passages quoted by 
me meant the resurrection of the dead, just as much as 
the passages quoted by Mr. Pingree, seeing that the lan- 
guage, in the original and English, was the same in all. 
1 argued that if the resurrection of the dead did not mean 
the resurrection of the dead, in the passages I quoted, then 
it could not mean it in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians, 
seeing that the same language was used. And how does 
Mr. Pingree meet this position? Why, forsooth, that the 
word anastasis or anistemei is not always used with refer- 
ence to the dead! And who ever thought it was? But 
not content with announcing a proposition which he seem- 



16& 



DEBATE ON 



ed to suppose was original, he took the pains to prove it 
for our edification; and quoted the passage where Jesus is 
said to be set " for the rising and falling again of many in 
Israel!" And he might have quoted many, very many 
others, more to his purpose, viz : " Mary arose and went 
into the hill country," " Paul arose and was baptized," etc. 
But for the life of me, I could not see how such learned 
criticism proved that the resurrection of the dead did not 
mean the resurrection of the dead in one place as well as 
another, And yet it was to elucidate this very point that 
he launched out into this mighty sea of Greek criticism 11 
I repeat, this is deep water; and little boats ought not to 
venture too far into it. 

Since it is confessed that Universalism mainly rest upon 
T Cor. 15, where the resurrection is spoken of, and since 
it is also confessed that if men dying in their sins are not 
changed in the resurrection, they are not changed at all, 
you will pardon me for calling your attention to these mat- 
ters again. And let us see what has been done? I have 
shown from the Scriptures that there will he a " resurrec- 
tion of the just and of the unjust." That they are not all 
made righteous then, as Mr. Pingree affirms; but that they 
"shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame 
and everlasting contempt;" — "they that have done good 
[shall come forth] unto the resurrection of life, and they 
that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." 
These and kindred passages I have adduced to show that 
all do not rise alike — that they are not all made holy and 
saved in the resurrection; that "the dead in Christ shall 
rise first." I have shown that the chapter in Corinthians ? 
relied upon by the Universalists, does not conflict with my 
views : that chapter refers mainly to the " resurrection of 
the just," to those " who come forth to the resurrection of 
everlasting life." The Apostle is speaking of those who 
"have fallen asleep in Christ?'' (verse 18,) not in drunk- 
eness, in murder, idolatry, etc. He is speaking of those 
" that are Christ's," and not those who are sold under sin, 
and belong to the devil. Now we believe as the Apostle 
elsewhere tells us, (I Thess. iv. 14-17) that "them which 
sleep in Jesus [not in sin] will God bring with him" — that 
" the dead in Christ [not the dead in drunkeness and de- 
bauchery] shall rise first;" and shall be caught up " to 
meet the Lord in the air, and so shall ever be with the 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



163 



Lord." And that the wicked " shall not escape," (see next 
chapter, verse 3rd,) for "then sudden destruction cometh 
upon them." This makes the Scriptures harmonize,- and 
the whole subject appear plain and easy. 

But 1 Cor. 15 is wholly unsuited to the necessities of 
Universalism. The Universalists hold that all the resur- 
rection which takes place is immediately upon death. I 
charge Mr. Pingree with not believing in the resurrection 
as one event. He holds that it is a work which has been 
going on since the creation — a work that is now going on 
in the world. Of course then this chapter is wholly un- 
suited to his purposes. The resurrection here spoken of 
is one which takes place at Christ's coming — " at the last 
trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be 
raised incorruptible." This accounts to you for Mr. Pin- 
gree's insisting that the resurrection effects a moral change: 
the truth is he does not hold to a literal resurrection of the 
body. Then, I say, this chapter is wholly unsuited to his 
purposes; for the Apostle does not allude by the remotest 
intimations, to a change of any thing else but the body. 
The soul is not corruptible — neither can you bury it : it 
would be nonseuse, then, to talk about raising a soul incor- 
ruptible. It is not mortal : and therefore it would be the 
grossest absurdity to say, in relation to the soul, that "this 
mortal shall put on immortality." Besides the body is ex- 
pressly named: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a 
spiritual body." So this -chapter cannot be tortured to 
speak in favor of Universalism. I will not pause to repel 
the misrepresentation, that I said the language of the 
Apostle was applicable only to the Christians in Corinth, 
and not to saints every where and \i\ every age. That 
and many other such misrepresentations only prove that 
Mr. Pingree feels that he^ is in great tribulation. Paul 
wrote to Christains and of Christians, and not to sinners 
nor of sinners. His language applies to a class no matter 
whether in Corinth or where — then living, or living 
since. 

He told us that the Baptist at least would need a moral 
change after death, because they now unchristianized all 
other denominations. This is notoriously untrue. I do not 
suppose that he wilfully misrepresented us," I mention this 
as another instance in proof, that he does not understand 
the subject he came here to discuss, He further argued 



164 



DEBATE ON 



that no man would be fit for heaven, unless a moral change 
takes place after death. This I deny. The mind must be 
conformed to the law of God, or no man can be saved; 
and every mind conformed to the law of God needs no 
further moral change — is fit for heaven; for "the law is 
holy, just, and good." The question then is, can this con- 
formity take place in this life? If so, Mr. Pingree's posi- 
tion falls to the ground. That it can and does, let Paul 
testify. He says, " With the mind I myself serve tlie laic 
of God" Again : " I delight in the law of God after the 
inward man." Now I appeal to every Christian who hears 
me, if he would not be holy ? if he does not ardently de- 
sire it? If he does not wish he might never sin again, but 
be as free from its influences as the angels in heaven? 
What then says the Apostle on such cases? — " If then 1 do 
that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is 
good. Now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth 
in me : For I know that, in me, that is, in my flesh dwelleth 
no good thing; for to will is present with me, but how to 
perform that which is good I find not. For the good that 
1 would, I do not ; but the evil which I would not, that 1 
do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do 
it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that 
when I would do good evil is present with me : for I de- 
light in the law of God after the inward man. But I see 
another law in my members warring against the law of my 
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin 
which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who 
shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank 
God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the 
mind I myself serve the law of God ; but with the flesh the 
law of sin." I ask, what change did Paul need ? Not of 
mind; for that was conformed to the law of God — that de- 
lighted in the law of God. But of what did he complain? 
Why of the law in his members that warred against the 
law of his mind : He found that in his flesh was no good 
thing; and he prayed to be delivered from the body of this 
death. So all that he needed was a physical change. Had 
the emotions of his body accorded with those of his mind 
he would have been free from sin. It was then a change 
of body and not a change of mind, or moral change, which 
he sought. Paul speaks the experience of every Chris- 
tian upon earth. So then Christians need only a physical 
and not a moral change after death. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



165 



Mr. Pingree admitted that Judas Iscariot went in ad- 
vance of the Savior to heaven : or rather he concluded 
that his doctrine inculcated that sentiment, and he justified 
the doctrine. 

Mr. Pingree. I do not know where Judas went. 

Mr. Waller. He does not know where Judas went 1 
His mind has suddenly become foggy! He is in perplexity 
about Judas, and does not wish to speak his sentiments de- 
finitely. But the Savior called Judas a thief, the son of 
perdition, etc., and said it were better for him, had he never 
been born. It is recorded of him that he hanged himself, 
and went to his own place. Really it speaks, in my esti- 
mation, rather to the praise of Mr. Pingree, that he shrinks 
to declare in so many words, that the abandoned wretch 
who betrayed the Lord of life and glory, and who misera- 
bly perished by his own traitorous hands, went directly to 
heaven! This sense of shame manifested for a proposition 
so monstrous, is at least an indication that his mind is not 
so easy in the reception of the system which necessarily 
brings forth such frightful abortions. 

He says that according to our doctrine a man may be 
righteous all his life, and then be lost for one sin. We 
teach nothing of the sort. And he seems to think too that 
if a man has been wicked all his life, abominably wicked, 
that we teach he is pardoned by one emotion of the mind 
— by an empty wish. But we do no such thing. Our doc- 
trine bearing upon each of those points may be seen in 
the following language of the prophet; — Eze. xviii. 21-22, 
<; But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath 
committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is 
lawful and right, he shall surely live: HE SHALL NOT 
DIE. All his transgressions that he hath committed shall 
not be mentioned unto him. in his righteousness that he 
hath done he shall live." The Almighty hath no pleasure 
in the death of the wicked; and Jesus is able to save to 
the uttermost all that come unto God by him. 

The gentleman in his last speech again alluded, rather 
tremblingly I thought, to the subject that a punishment 
was for the reformation of the individual punished; and to 
this end quoted a passage in Leviticus xxvi, the purport of 
which in its connexion was, that if the Israelites, alter be- 
ing repeatedly punished, should reform, then God would 
spare them for the sake of his covenant with their fathers, 



/ 



166 



DEBATE ON 



All of this does not meet what I have said in objection to 
the doctrine, so essential to his system, that all punishment 
is inflicted for the good of the individual. I grant that 
punishment is for the good of society — to prevent the com- 
mission of crime; and to that end it is inflicted: and I 
supposed that this was the very doctrine the Universalists 
opposed; and certainly the very one against which my op- 
ponent professed to be reasoning. His proof then did 
not apply to his case. It was rather in support of what I 
affirmed. 

But I must pass to weightier matters, alluding to such 
things as Mr. Pingree has recapitulated as I may find 
leisure. 

Universalism assumes, and makes the assumption a vital 
principle, that the term pardon or forgiveness, in the Bible, 
is not to be understood in the ordinary acceptation of lan- 
guage : that it does not mean what it means every where 
else ; but that it means to make holy — to take away sin. 
Well, taking that for granted; or taking the word in either 
sense, that is, in the true, or in the Universalian sense, and 
I propose to show that some are never pardoned. To the 
law then and to the testimony; for I speak according to 
these: — Heb. vi. 4-6: — a For it is impossible for those 
who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heaven- 
ly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and 
the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, 
to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify 
the son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." 
Unless Universalism has the effrontery to declare that to 
be done which inspiration affirms to be " impossible" then 
we must believe there are some who cannot be renewed 
unto repentance. 

Again: Heb. x. 26-27 — "For if we sin wilfully after 
that we have received a knowledge of the truth, there re- 
maineth no more sacrifice for sins : but a certain fearful look- 
ing for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour 
the adversaries." Mark iii. 29 — "But he that shall blas- 
pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but 
is in danger of eternal damnation." James ii. 13 — "For 
he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no 
mercy." 2 Kings xxiv. 4 — "And also for the innocent 
blood that he shed, [for he filled Jerusalem with innocent 
blood,] which the Lord would not pardon." Isaiah xxvii. 



UNIVERSALIS!*!. 



167 



1 1 — ** When the boughs thereof are withered, they shall 
be broken off: the women came and set them on fire: for 
it is a people of no consideration; therefore, he that made 
them will not have mercy on them, and he that formed 
them will show them no favor." There are other passages 
of similar tenor which I will not detain to quote. Here 
then it is declared by the God of truth, that to certain 
persons there is " never forgiveness'' — that it is " impossi- 
ble" to renew them to repentance — that there remaineth 
for them " no mere sacrifice for sin;" that the Lord "would 
not pardon" them — that " he that formed will not have 
mercy on them," and will '* show them no favor." Uni- 
versalism flatly contradicts all this, and says they all will 
be pardoned! that is, made holy and happy!!! "Let God be 
true, but every man a liar." 

But I will press this assumption of Universalism still 
more closely: for if pardon of sin is equivalent to making 
holy and taking away sin, then I affirm, if the Scriptures 
be true, no one was ever pardoned in this life! The pas- 
sage adduced from Paul, (Rom. vii.) awhile ago, proves this 
matter beyond doubt. He says, that 4 in our flesh dwelleth 
no good thing" 5 — that 'with the flesh we serve the law of 
sin.' It is written (1 Kings viii. 46,) " There is no man 
that sinneth not." Again : says Solomon, (Eccl. xvi. 12,) 
" No man liveth and sinneth not." Again : says an Apos- 
tle (1 John i. 8,) " If we say we have no sin, we deceive 
ourselves and the truth is not in us." And again : James 
iii. 2 — " For in many things we offend all." And Mr. Pin- 
gree admits that no man is free from sin. If therefore, 
there is any truth in Universalism, no man is ever pardon- 
ed in this life : that is, made holy or free from sin, for so 
they define pardon. But in opposition to this, we have the 
most plain and positive declarations of the Scriptures, that 
men are pardoned in this life! So if you receive Univer- 
salism you must reject the Bible for its numerous contra- 
dictions! 

Now mark our position : We have seen that according 
to the Universalist definition of pardon, no one was or can 
ever be pardoned in this life : I now propose to show that 
the Bible teaches that sins are pardoned in this life. 

To this point, I will let a few quotations suffice. Doubt- 
less a number of others will suggest themselves to your 
minds, for the Bibe is full of them. Indeed, 1 have already 



DEBATE ON 



quoted many of that class — Matt, ix. 2 — "Son, be of good 
cheer • thy sins be forgiven thce^ Luke vii. 47, 48 — 
,;i Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins which are many are: 
forgiven. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.'''' 
1 John ii. 12— ; * I write unto you, little children, because 
your sins are forgiven you." So then Universalism makes 
the Bible contradict itself, by asserting in one breath that 
no man can be forgiven in this life, and in the next, that 
men are forgiven! and because of these contradictions, the 
system which makes them, must be false. 

Nor does the matier stop here. The gentleman must 
persist in making the Bible thus contradict itself; for if he 
grants that men are forgiven or made holy in this life, 
then he must surrender the position so vital to his cause, 
that all men must experience a moral change in the resur- 
rection! So Mr. Pingree is reduced to the dreadful alter- 
native of giving up his system; or else, in maintaining it, 
tp insist that the Bible contradicts itself ! ! Yes, he makes 
the Bible destroy itself! — to assert one moment, that no 
man can be without sin; and the next moment to declare, 
that all Christians are forgiven — are free from sin!! — and 
in another moment still; that no man is forgiven or made 
free from sin until raised from the grave!!! Such is the 
preposterous nonsense of the Universalian system. 

But I have some criticisms to make on some passages 
relating to the resurrection of the dead. Paul says, Acts 
xxiv. 15 — "I have hope toward God, which they them- 
selves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of 
the dead, both of the just and unjust." But asked Mr. 
Pingree with great emphasis, Would Paul hope for the 
resurrection of the unjust if they are punished ? Paul had 
hope or expectation [for so the original, elpis, means] of a 
resurrection of all the dead, both of the just and unjust. 
Now cannot a pious man hope for such a resurrection, 
when himself and all saints will be happy ? Or is it true 
that he cannot even desire such a resurrection because 
some will justly be punished for their sins? With the 
same propriety, we must not desire good laws and a good 
administration of government, because if so, all the poor 
thieves and murderers will certainly be punished! The 
passage shows, that Paul held the sentiment of the Phari- 
sees, and expected a resurrection of the just and unjust jj 
the former, to everlasting life; and the latter to shame and 



UNIVERSALIS M 



169 



everlasting contempt. I have hope of a resurrection; all 
Christians have that hope. And they look forward with 
pleasing anticipations to the time when these bodies of 
theirs shall be fashioned like unto the glorious body of the 
son of God — when free from sickness, sorrow, pain and 
death, they shall be kings and priests unto God forever. 
Nor do they suppose they will love God the less or that it 
will mar in the least their happiness, to find, in the morn- 
ing of the resurrection, that the Almighty is holy, and 
just, and good, punishing iniquity, transgression, and sin. 
They loved him in this world because such was his char- 
acter; nor will they love him the less because that charac- 
ter displays itself through the ages of eternity. As no 
virtuous mind can respect that government which permits 
every transgressor to go free; neither could it contribute 
to raise the divine government in the esteem of the right- 
eous, if the unclean, and the abominable, murderers, and 
fornicators, and drunkards, and all liars should have their 
portion with the saints in glory. They would not associate 
with such here in this world; surely then they would es- 
teem it hard to be compelled to do so in the world to come! 
But Mr. Pingree says they are changed after death and 
made holy; and then of course there is no hardship in the 
case. Very well; let him prove this. This he has not 
done: and until he does this; he ought not to think it 
strange that Paul desired (if he must have that meaning) 
to be forever free from such companions in the glorious 
abode of the just. 

There is a passage much relied upon by Universalists 
and has been referred to by Mr. Pringree to prove a moral 
renovation after death. It is found in Malt. xxii. 30 — "In 
the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in 
marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven/'' The 
same incident is recorded in Mark xii. 25, 26, and Luke 
xx. 35-38. Now these passages are said to teach that all 
men in the resurrection will be made holy as the angels of 
God in heaven. But I object to this view of the subject : 
1st, Because admitting it to refer to all men, it asserts that 
they shall be like the angels in reference to marriage, and 
no farther. This is the fair construction of the language 
in Matthew and Mark. But 2nd, The language as in Luke 
shows that all men were not intended, it reads : " But 
they which shall be accounted worthy to attain that ivorld 



170 



DEE ATE ON 



and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are 
given in marriage; neither can they die anymore: for 
they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of 
God, being the children of the resurrection/' Thus reads the 
passage commented upon by Mr. Pingree. You will per- 
ceive that he is not speaking of all, if so why mention 
those " who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that 
world?" Why this qualification mentioned, and why this 
discrimination made, if he were speaking of all and if all 
were equally worthy 1 And w T hy, in further elucidations 
of his subject, did he mention only pious individuals, as 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not as well Balaam and 
the prophets of Baal, if he intended to teach that the 
wicked and the righteous were both to be " equal unto the 
angels" and li . the children of God" in the resurrection? 
But he is speaking of a 6< resurrection from [ek nekron, 
out of] the dead." And so in Mark : — M For when they 
shall rise from [ek — out of] the dead." Now I lay this 
down as true; throughout the New Testament, where it is 
said there is a resurrection out of or from among the dead, 
a partial and not a universal resurrection is meant, unless 
this is an exception. This language is no where else 

APPLEID TO THE RISING OF ALL THE DEAD. I challenge the 

denial of this. Let us then examine some examples of 
this usage. 

It is used in reference to the resurrection of the Savior. 
All the dead did not rise with him. Hence he is said to 
rise out of [ek] or from among the dead. Mark ix. 9. 10 
— " He charged them that they should tell no man what 
things they had seen, till the son of man be risen from 
[ek] the dead. And they kept that saying with themselves, 
questioning one with another what the rising from [ek] the 
dead should mean." This criticism, permit me to remark, 
serves to render easy of explanation, this passage which 
has greatly perplexed many expositors. The disciples 
were in no doubt about the resurrection of the bodies of 
men; but they believed like Martha, that there would be 
no resurrection until the last day, and then all would be 
raised. Said this sister of Lazarus, and she spoke the sen- 
timents of all the disciples, "I know that he shall rise 
again in the resurrection at the last day." The disciples 
were in no perplexity about a general resurrection. They 
did not question that all should arise at the last day. But 



i 



UN1VEE SALISM. 



171 



they did not understand this rising out of the dead — this 
rising before all the dead men were raised — before the last 
day. This was new doctrine to them. Hence they ques- 
tioned " one with another what the rising from among the 
dead should mean." But to proceed: Acts iii. 15 — "Ye 
killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from [ek — 
out of, or from among] the dead." Acts i v. 10 — "Jesus 
Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised 
from [ek — out of, or from among] the dead." And so, I 
believe in every case where his rising from the dead is 
mentioned, the same word in the original [ek] obtains; as 
Acts xiii. 30 and 34; — xvii. 3; Rom. i. 4; — vi. 4; — vii.4; — 
vim 11;— 1 Cor. xv. 12 and 20;— Eph. i. 20;— Col. ii. 12; 
—1 Thess. i. 10;— 2 Tim. ii. 7;— 1 Peter i. 21;— Rev. i. 
5. Now in all these passages the expression raised from 
[ek, out of or from among] the dead is used, and with re- 
ference to the resurrection of the Savior. It did not mean 
a general resurrection in his case, for all did not rise with 
him. He arose alone. But yet he rose from among the 
dead, as it is said of those in the passages, now under con- 
sideration, in Mark and Luke. If in the former case the 
expression cannot mean a general resurreclion; shall we, 
for the special accommodation of Universalism in the latter 
case, force that meaning upon it? 

But the same usage occurs with reference to the resur- 
rection of Lazarus: John xii. 1 — "Where Lazarus was 
which had been dead, whom he raised from [ek — out of or 
from among] the dead." And verse 17 — " When he called 
Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from [ek — out 
of] the dead." Now unless we believe that all the dead 
were raised with Lazarus, we cannot believe that, when 
the Savior said, " they shall rise from [ek — out of] the 
dead," he taught a resurrection of all the dead? And if 
we believe that Lazarus rose from among the dead, leaving 
dead behind him; then we must also believe that those of 
whom the Savior spoke arose from among the dead, leav- 
ing dead behind them. The cases are precisely analog- 
ous; and we cannot seperate them in our conclusions upon 
the language employed. 

Again : a similar usage occurs in Heb. xi. 19, where it 
is said that Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, 
" accounting that God was able to raise him up, even fkom 
the dead;" ek — out of the dead. 



172 



DEBATE ON 



These passages show, that when a resurrection from [ek 
— out of] the dead is spoken of, a general resurrection is 
not meant. In the numerous examples adduced we see it has 
no such meaning — but means a partial resurrection. Ek 
is never used in reference to a general resurrection. It 
follows then, that Jesus only spoke of a part of the dead 
— of the righteous — who should be ¥ s accounted worthy to 
obtain that world," and who should rise out of the dead, 
who should be equal to the angels and be the children of 
God. This corresponds to the position I have all along 
assumed, that the dead in Christ should rise before the 
wicked — they shall arise from among the wicked. And so 
the Apostles " taught the people, and preached through 
Jesus the resurrection out of the dead," (Acts iv. 2;) that 
is. that through Jesus alone could they be " accounted 
worthy to obtain thai world, and the resurrection out of 
the dead:" — that glorious resurrection which takes place 
before those out of Christ are raised to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt. 

I defy the ingenuity of Satan to escape this criticism; 
and being admitted, this vaunted fortress of Universalism 
which Mr. Pingree seemed to think impregnable, turns out 
to be as insubstantial as a castle of gossamer. Indeed, so 
far from aiding the cause it is brought by Universal ists to 
support, it turns out to be a magazine capable of blowing 
it into nonentity. 

I wish to present another criticism before I conclude 
this speech. The Greak word, aionies, is used with re- 
ference to punishment; as, "These shall go away into 
everlasting punishment;" — "Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;" 
— " Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
from the presence of the Lord;" " But he lhat shall blas- 
pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness; but 
is in danger of eternal damnation;" — "Suffering the ven- 
geance of eternal fire," etc. This word, according to my 
counting, occurs 66 times in the New Testament. It is 
used 51 times in reference to the happiness of the right- 
eous in the undoubted sense of endless; 2 times it is used 
in reference to God and his glory, and means the same 
thing; 6 times in reference to miscellaneous matters in the 
same undoubted sense; and 7 times in relation to the pun- 
ishment of the wicked. So that if in these seven cases it 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



173 



does not mean endless, it has departed from its meaning 
every where else in the New Testament, for the especial 
accommodation of Universalism!! If the divine writers, 
by prophetic spirit, had intended to condemn Universalism, 
they could have found no stronger word for the purpose 
in the Greek language than the one they have employed. 
Mr. Pingree will not, I am sure, venture to deny this. 
Here then I rest : The prevailing usage of aionies, used 
7 times in reference to the punishment of the wicked, 
shows that its common meaning in the New Testament is 
everlasting or endless. Now remember I say, that this is 
its common meaning in the New Testament. Again : it is 
a rule of interpretation never to be departed from: That 
the common meaning of a word is never to be deserted, 
unless from absolute necessity. Then the punishment of 
the wicked is everlasting or endless, unless Mr. Pingree 
can show the necessity for departing from the common 
meaning of aionios in the New Testament for the benefit 
of his system! Unless he can do this, he must give up 
his doctrine, or else dispute the eternity of God and the 
endless happiness of the righteous; for these are not as- 
serted in terms more strong in the New Testament, than 
the endless punishmeni of the wicked. But I need not 
say more upon this point, until I hear from Mr. Pingree. 
It subverts his whole system. 

As I have but little more time to speak, I will employ it 
in expressing a few more though is on Mr. Pingree's posi- 
tion, respecting a moral change after death. 

David says, Psalms vi. 4 and 5, " Return, O Lord, deliv- 
er my soul : Oh save me for thy mercy ? s sake : for in 
death there is no remembrance of thee ; in the grave, ivho 
shall give thee thanks?" "Why did the Psalmist ask for 
deliverance, and why did he cry for salvation in this life ? 
Because in death there is no remembrance of God, and in 
Hades it was too late to give thanks. That was no place, 
according to David for deliverance and salvation : hence 
he wanted to secure them in this world, before he went 
there. David had not heard Mr. Ballon : — he was no Uni- 
versalist. Once more : Psalm lxxxviii. 1 1, 12 — " Shall thy 
loving kindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithful- 
ness in destruction? Shall thy wonders be known in the 
dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" 
These questions which David seemed to think no one could 



'174 



DEBATE ON 



perpetrate the absurdity of answering affirmatively, Uni- 
versalism not only so answers, but predicates its very ex- 
istence upon that response! 

[mr. pingree's eighth speech.] 
Respected Friends : — Under the shadow of the quota- 
tions from the poet, that " a little learning is a dangerous 
thing;" and in view of the consequences of small boats 
not keeping near shore, in deep waters; and as we are 
just now told we were in deep Waters, it behoves me, I sup- 
pose, to be careful as to my positions, and not go very far 
from shore; particularly, as sundry defiances have been 
thrown out on Greek words, etc. As I make no preten- 
tions of being a scholar, I shall not refer to original lan- 
guages, further than seems absolutely necessary. With 
regard to some words, it is necessary. I shall not notice 
all the defiances and challenges of the gentleman as to the 
Greek particle ek, which he referred to, and laid so much 
stress upon. You will recollect my argument from xv. of 
Corinthians, in favor of the salvation of all men, from the 
resurrection of all. That inasmuch as all die in Adam, 
all shall be made alive in Christ. The reply he makes is 
that xv. of Corinthians relates only to the resurrection of the 
saints. That it is the resurrection of the just, and not of 
sinners. Because the 15th of Corinthians was addressed to 
the Christians in Corinth, and relates to a change in the 
body alone! 

The particle ek is applied to the word resurrection, he 
says, wherever the resurrection of the just alone is spoken 
of — ek : " out of:- — from among"' — the unjust. 

Mr. Waller.— I did not say so. I said it was never 
used of the general resurrection. To relieve his difficulty 
I will state it is not in xv. Corinthians — for the context 
shows what is there spoken of. 

Mr. Pingree.— - If it be not a general principle, (and I un- 
derstood him to challange a single case to the contrary,) his 
argument all goes for nothing. It is not worth a straw, if 
it be not universally true; and it is not true'm 15th of Corin- 
thians, nor in the passage in Acts. In the former, as in 
the latter, the particle ek is not used. So if given up as a 
matter of universal application, it has no bearing at all 
upon the question. I leave that, then, for the present. 

He now appeals to the context in xv. Corinthians, The 



TTNIVERSALISM. 



175 



context shows, he says, what is there spoken of. What is 
the context/ Does the word all mean only the Christ- 
ians? Does "how shall we escape?" (Heb. ii. 3,) mean 
the saints alone shall not escape? The chapter positively 
declares that all shall be made alive in Christ, who die in 
Adam. If there be any who do not die in Adam, then 
there are some who are not raised from the dead and made 
alive in Christ — not otherwise. 

I shall not now, however, review the last speech. I 
shall proceed to show the doctrine of the Judgment, as we 
hold it. 

But first a word in relation to Mr. Waller's mode of 
quoting Scripture;— -first giving only a few and afterwards 
scores of passages together, without comment. Is that the 
way to manage a discussion on Scriptural questions ? to 
speak for two or three days, and quote but one or two pas- 
sages, and now, at the conclusion of the discussion, to 
string together one after another, expressed in terms about 
which people have preconceived notions, hoping that all 
will apply to them the meaning they have always been 
accustomed to apply, when there is not time left to exam- 
ine and discuss them fully? 

But let me state my position in reference to the Judg- 
ment. The Judgment under Jesus Christ, we believe to 
be progressive, in this world, during the reign and rule of 
Jesus Christ, which commenced 1800 years ago, and will 
continue till the resurrection of the dead, when the king- 
dom of Jesus Christ will be delivered up to God. 

There are various judgments mentioned in the Bible, 
Some are limited judgments, for particular things, upon 
particular men, at particular times.- This doctrine does not 
apply to them; nor to the destruction of Jerusalem. This 
is what I say: That the Judgment under Jesus Christ 
embraces the dissolution of the Jewish polity, to be follow- 
ed by the reign of the Gospel. But that that was all, I 
do not say; but the Judgment embraced that. Yet there 
are passages relating to that particular event. The great 
doctrine is, that the Judgment of Jesus Christ continues 
from the beginning of his reign to the delivering up of his 
kingdom to God the Father. 

Before I go further to establish this doctrine, I will no- 
tice another point of Mr. Waller. Admitting the fact to 
be that the wicked are punished immediately after death, 



176 



DEBATE ON 



as Partialists believe, and admitting the passage quoted, to 
mean what Mr. Waller says, then Tratarus and Hades are 
places of punishment before the Judgment! If this senti* 
ment be correct, the Antediluvians, Sodomites, and Egypt- 
ians, who lived thousands of years ago, have been suffering 
a punishment inflicted by God ever since their destruction. 
The Judgment is put off, according to the popular belief; 
then here are millions suffering in Hell before they have 
been judged!! Suppose a governor or other civil ruler 
should do this; that an accused person should be first hung, 
and afterwards tried? Who ever heard of such mon- 
strous injustice ? Does God govern mankind in this way? 
punish men for thousands, perhaps millions of years, and 
then judge theml It is so, if men suffer in Tartarus, and 
are afterwards judged, as Mr. Waller seems to bslieve. 
Hang a man, then try him!! 

Psalms lviii. 11:" Verily he is a God that judgeth in 
the earth.'* Psalms ix. 16: "The Lord is known by the 
judgment which he execute™," [in the present tense.] 
Psalms xcvi. 10-13: " Say among the heathen that the 
Lord reigneth : the world also shall be established that it 
shall not be moved : he shall judge the people righteously. 
Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad : let the 
sea roar and the fulness thereof. Let the field be joyful, 
and all that is therein : then shall all the trees of the wocd 
rejoice before the Lord : for he cometh, for he cometh to 
judge the earth : he shall judge the world with righteous- 
ness, and the people with his timih:"-rM;he Psalmist calls for 
rejoicing, because of the judgment. It was not so dread- 
ful and horrible a thing as to terminate in endless perdi- 
tion! It was one which all things could rejoice at, and as 
David did, when he said, "Before I was afflicted, I went 
astray — but now have I kept thy law." 

Isaiah xlii. 4 : "He shall not fail nor be discouraged 
till he has set judgment in the earth.' 1 '' In Revelation xx. 
" the earth" and the heaven had fled away; and yet Isaiah 
prophesied the judgment to be "in the earth." In Ga. ii. 2- 
5: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, [that is, of the 
Mosaic despensation,] that the mountain of the Lord's 
house shall be established on the top of the mountains, 
and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall 
flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, come ye 
and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the 



U N I V E B, S A L I S M . 



177 



house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his 
ways, and we will walk in his paths : for out of Zion shall 
go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusa- 
lem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall re* 
buke many people ; and they shall beat their swords into 
plough shares and their spears into pruning hooks : nation 
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they 
leave war any more." 

Micahi v. 1 to 4, Jeremiah xxiiL 5 and 6, Psalms ex. all 
prophesy that the coming of Jesus Christ is for judging 
and ruling men; and when we come to the New Testa- 
ment, we see where the prophecies were accomplished. 

John v. 22 — " For the Father judgeth no man — that is, 
now — but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." It 
was done then according to the prophecies before given 
and quoted. John ix. 39, Jesus said, " For judgment, 
I am come into this world" 

I will notice another passage in the 7th of Daniel, which 
presents the whole matter as we hold it, in reference lo 
the Judgment. 9th verse : " I beheld till the thrones were 
cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garments 
where white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure 
wool : his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels 
as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth 
from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, 
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him : the 
judgment was set, and the books were opened." [Corres- 
ponding with the language in Revelation.] " I saw in the 
night visions and behold, one like the Son of man came 
with the clouds of heaven, and carce to the Ancient of 
days and they brought him near before him. And then 
was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all 
people, nations and languages, should serve him : his do- 
minion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass 
away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." 

Now this is the prophecy of the receiving of the king- 
dom by Christ, and the judgment as exercised by him. 
You see the correspondence with 20th Revelations. It 
differs from Cor. 15th, in that the latter states that the 
Kingdom will then be delivered up to the Father. You 
see the difference. Men now place the judgment at the 
resurrection ; while the Sacred Writer places it all along 
during Jesus Christ's reign, commencing with the establish- 
12 



178 



DEBATE ON 



ment of his kingdom. I wish this to be remembered— that 
at the " delivering up of his kingdom to the Father, 1 ' and 
the resurrection of the literally dead, not a word is said as 
to there being then any judgment or punishment : all are 
" in Christ," immortal, in glory. 

He quoted Peter : " For if the righteous scarcely be 
saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear ? " I 
asked if this meant that the righteous were to be "scarcely 
saved" in the life to come 1 By no means. Mr. Waller 
will " scarcely" venture to assert this. I presume the de- 
claration relates to salvation here. What does it say of 
judgment? Read the preceeding verse : 17th verse 4th ch. 
1 Pet. " For the time is come, that judgment must begin at 
the house of God, and if it first begin at us, what shall the 
end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God 1 " And 
so Revelation vi. 17 : " For the great day of his wrath is 
come— who shall be able to stand?" After that, the Gos- 
pel was to be preached, as spoken of in Revelation. Does 
he say the judgment is in the future life ? after " the day 
of judgment"? That would be a ridiculous idea. I know 
John's Revelation is a difficult book to understand; yet this 
passage may be brought against Mr. Waller's exposition of 
those quoted by him, so far as relates to the prophecies of 
the Old Testament, and in the New Testament of their 
fulfilment. 

Ezekiel xxxvi. 19 : " According to their doings I judged 
them." Here judgment is spoken of as having occurred 
in time past ; not to be in the future life. He had done it. 
So in Lamentations : " The punishment of thine iniquity 
is accomplished." Yet we hear now that punishment is 
never, never, never to cease! while Jeremiah said, in this 
case, that it had been accomplished. 

1 Cor. v. Paul takes upon himself the authority (is it 
a usurped authority ?) to " judge" the incestuous man to be 
" delivered to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that 
his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 
And in 2 Cor. ii. 6, he says, "Sufficient unto such a man 
is this punishment, which was inflicted of many." " Suffi- 
cient 1 " It would be nonsense to say it was sufficient, if 
punishment is endless, and never to cease. Yet so it says 
here : " So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive 
him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be 
swallowed up with over much sorrow?' 1 People are not trou- 



fXIVESSALI S Bf .. 



!T9 



bled now about u over much sorrow," in the life to come. 
They cry out. with Tertullio.11. "How I shall rejoice! how 
exult 1 in those torments/' Here the sinner was punished 
and then forgiven: and this is the doctrine of Scripture. 
— Mr. Waller's ridicule to the contrary notwithstanding. 

So much for our doctrine of the Judgment. I have szis- 
leaned i: by the Old and Xew Testament, and by tacts. I 
will now notice those passages which he quoted, relating 
to a resurrection in connection with those that speak of 
judgment. 

And first, of the resurrection in Daniel xii.- — a passage 
of great importance, and one. if the interpretation com- 
monly given of it be correct, that will prove the doctrine 
of universal salvation to be false : " And many of them 
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt," This is quoted in connection with John v: "Mar- 
vel not at this." says Christ: "for the hour is coming in 
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and 
shall come forth: they that have done good unto the re- 
surrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the 
resurrection of damnation;" which is parallel with Dam 
xii.. by the admission of him who quotes it. If they prove 
the time to relate to the future life, in the first instance, it 
shows the same of the last: and so vice versa, if shown to 
be confined to this life. They stand together, as to their 
bearing on the general resurrection. 

Xow there are some marks about this chapter, (12th 
Daniel.) which show the time at which that resurrection 
was to be. Xow it is urged that John v. and Dan. xii. re- 
fer to a resurrection of the naturally dead to immortality, 
I deny it; and I will endeavor to establish the correctness 
of my denial. Before that is fully done, however, I will 
give an illustration of the word "graves" in 5th John. 
That it is not Hades, where the dead in general are, I will 
prove at another time. 

In this case, "graves" is not applied literally — to the 
literally dead. Those that believe in Jesus Christ have 
now eternal life; as seen by the context. They "have 
passed from death to life." For a similar, though not the 
same use of "graves." see Ezekiel xxxvii. 12: Therefore 
prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God : 
Behold O my people! I will open your graves, and cause 



180 



DEBATE ON 



you to come up out of your graves, and bring you unto 
the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, 
when I have opened your graves, O my people, and 
brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my spirit 
in you," etc. 

This shows that the word 11 graves' 1 '' sometimes applies to 
those who are not literally dead, and that the expression 
''come up out of your graves," does not mean come up 
from natural death, to a state of immortality. 

It is the vision of the valley of dry bones, that is de- 
scribed in this 37th chapter of Ezekiel : "And he said 
unto me, Son of man, can these bones live ? and I answer- 
ed, Lord God, thou knowest." And after the Lord had 
clothed the bones with living flesh, and put breath into 
them, so that they "stood up on their feet, an exceeding 
great army;" "then he said unto me, Son of man, these 
iones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say our 
bones are dried," &c. The house of Israel, the prophe- 
sy goes on to say, so degraded, and withered, and scatter- 
ed, was to be restored to its privileges and enjoy its dominion 
of territory. Vitality was to be restored to those who 
were in the "graves." They should come forth from their 
low estate. 1 do not say it refers to the same thing, as John 
v.; but there is a similar use of the word, "graves;" and 
it shows it is not always applied to literal death; but used 
figuratively, as in John v. 

Now for the "marks" in the 12th of Daniel, as to the 
time when the resurrection there spoke^i of was to be ac- 
complished. The 1st verse says, " And at that time shall 
Michael stand up : the great prince which standeth for the 
children of thy people : and there shall be a time of trou- 
ble, such as never was since there was a nation even to 
that same time : and at that time thy people shall be de- 
livered, every one that shall be found written in the book." 
This verse contains a mark. It speaks of " a time of 
trouble such as never was since there was a nation," etc. 
Now if you turn to the 24th of Matthew, you will find 
that Jesus Christ alludes to it, and the time will be shown 
by that context. Matthew xxiv. 21 : "For then shall be 
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of 
the world to this time, no, nor ever shall he." The Savior 
evidently referrs to Daniel's language. When was 
the " tribulation" to come ? See the proceeding verses : 



\ 

i 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



181 



verse 16. "Then let them which be in Judea flee to the 
mountains: let him which is on the house top not come 
down to take any thing out of his house : neither let him 
which is in the field return back to take his ctothes. And 
wo unto them which are with child and to them which give 
suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not 
in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For then, then 
— at that time — shall be great tribulation.'" etc. Does this 
refer to the resurrection of the literally dead to immortal- 
ity? On such an occasion would he tell them to " pray 
that their flight should not be in the winter, nor on the Sab- 
bath day" ? ! Yet so you must hold, if you say the time 
referred to is in the future life. 

There is another mark in the same chapter, (12th Dan- 
iel,) verse 6 : " And one said to the man clothed in linen, 
which was upon the waters of the river, Hoio long shall it 
be to the end of these wonders?" [He desires to know the 
time when. Hear what the man answered :] " And I heard 
the man clothed in linen which was upon the waters of the 
river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand 
unto heaven, and svvare by him that liveth forever, that it 
shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when [here is 
the new mark,] he shall have accomplished to scatter the 
power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." 
This last sign is fulfilled m the scattering of the Jews — 
" the holy people," as spoken of by the Prophets. That is 
enough of itself. The time was when the scattering of the 
holy people should be. The Israelites were the chosen 
people of God, that were scattered at the establishment of 
the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection of those 
who were in darkness and ignorance — some to life, some to 
condemnation. 

I shall not dwell longer upon this, at present. I merely 
throw these remarks out as marks of the time when this 
resurrection should occur — and did occur; and to show 
that the passages had no reference to the literally dead 
rising to immortality. 

We come now to 2 Cor. v. 10: " For we must all ap- 
pear before the judgment seat of Christ: that every one 
may receive the things in body, according to that he hath 
done, whether it be good or bad." (1 leave out the words 
in Italics, " done,"" and " his." which are put in by the trans- 
lators, and are not in the original language — as acknowl- 
• 



182 



DEBATE ON 



edged by them in the use of Italic letters.) Look at that. 
Where is the judgment S3at of Christ ? Where his King- 
dom is — here: where it has stood for 1800 years, unless 
he has had no Kingdom. It exists now, and has stood for 
1800 years. When are courts of justice established in 
all correct civil governments 1 At the establishment of the 
government and legislature. Who ever knew of a court 
being established at the winding up of the affairs of a na- 
tion? They are established at the establishment of the 
Kingdom, or State. You see the application of that pass- 
age to it. There is no variation in the Bible. It is while 
we are u zn the body;" and not after we leave the body. 

It is said we are punished " according to our deeds, good 
or evil." I have said already that Mr. Waller does not be- 
lieve this, as it is written. He does not believe the very 
passages he has quoted. Are we punished " according to 
our works," if his doctrine be true? Suppose a person 
has lived a good life. According to Mr. Waller, he may 
be unhappy while he lives. Is he rewarded after death? 
No; because he happened to commit one sin before he 
died; and therefore went to Hell! — and receives no re- 
ward. A bad man, who has led a wicked life, is converted 
just at death, and goes to heaven; and receives no punish- 
ment for his sins. Are these persons judged u according to 
their works — good and evil 1 " No! According to the doc- 
trine of endless punishment, no man is punished according 
to his works — not one, living cr dying. For the time will 
never come, when it can be said he has been so punished. 
If that time should come, the punishment would cease. 
So of reward, if endless happiness is his merited reward. 
If his happiness goes on millions of ages, is he rewarded I 
No, he has not yet been rewarded; nor will that time ever 
arrive; for if it should come, in the progress of eternity, 
the reward would cease. Let that fact be avoided and 
set aside, if possible. 

But do you believe it? some one may ask. Certainly. 
while men are good, they are rewarded. They " have 
great peace," says the Psalmist. This is their reward. 
"The ways of wisdom are pleasant," says Solomon. Paul 
says, " For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, 
but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."" 
So the wicked are punished while wicked : afterwards made 
holy, and saved. 

But according to Orthodoxy, if a man has lived like an 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



183 



angel, and sins at his death, he must be sent to Hell forev- 
er. And vice versa. If a man has lived a bad life, and is 
converted at death, he will be forever happy, according to 
the common doctrine. According to the Bible, " every man 
is to be punished according to his works." But if judg- 
ment is to be followed by endless evil, the doctrine of pun- 
ishment according to works as declared in the Bible, cannot 
be true : the immortal destiny then depends on the state 
of the mind and heart at death. 

We have had Universalist writers read with regard to 
several things. Let us now hear the testimony of Ortho- 
dox writers with regard to the meaning of this passage. 
It is a fact of importance, that people commonly think of 
the doctrine of endless punishment as settled. They think 
it strange we do not believe it. They think that heretics 
and heterodox people u ought to be damned," as I have 
heard Orthodox preachers say. Now it is a fact that al- 
most every passage in the New Testament, commonly 
quoted to prove the doctrine of endless misery, has been 
explained, by one or another eminent Orthodox writer to 
relate to misery in this life. There are a few exceptions, 
perhaps; but almost all are explained by one or another of 
them in this way. Among these writers, are Whitby, 
Lightfoot, M'Knight, Hammond, Dr. A. Clarke and Dodd- 
ridge — worthy, wise, learned, and pious men. They do not 
all say the same things in reference to any one passage; but 
among them almost all the passages commonly quoted are 
admitted to refer to punishment in this life. I quote Light- 
foot on the 5th of John, merely to show an instance of this 
fact. The admissions of men of the truth of any point, 
against themselves, or their own theories, are of great con- 
sequence. If therefore they admit the fact in this in- 
stance, it shows that they have been compelled to do so, in 
spite of their creeds. Says Lightfoot on John v. "These 
words might also be applied to a spiritual resurrection, as 
were the former, (and so, coming out of graves meaneth, 
Ezek. xxxvii. 12,) the words of the verse following being 
only translated and glossed thus : and they shall come 
forth, they that do good, after they hear his voice in the 
Gospel, to the resurrection of life; and they that do 
evil, after they hear the Gospel, unto the resurrection 
of damnation. But they are more generally understood 
of the general resurrection," etc. Harm. Evang. Part. 
iii. John v. 28. 



184 



DEBATE ON 



Here is an admission that the passage may relate to 
punishment in this life — that it is not the literal resurrec- 
tion. I read from Paige's Selections — a selection by Rev- 
Lucius R. Paige, of passages from Orthodox writers, from 
books contained in the libraries in and near Boston, which 
are the largest in the country. I vouch for the correct- 
ness of the passages quoted in this book which I read. If 
I read one which shall be found not correctly quoted, it 
shall be published to the world. 

[mr. waller's eighth reply.] 
It seems my misfortune in this discussion to have an op- 
ponent who will not take time to give full attention to my 
arguments. The consequence is that he often misappre- 
hends them, and especially the main points, so that I am 
under the necessity of wasting much time in explanation 
for his benefit. He wholly mistook my criticism, or at 
least failed to see the point of it, on the usage of the par- 
ticle ek in connection with the resurrection. I did not 
say, that it was always used when a partial resurrection 
was spoken of, but that it never was used with reference to 
a general resurrection. Mr. Pingree had quoted Luke xx. 
35, 36, to prove that all men, in the resurrection, would be 
equal unto the angels and the children of God. I rejoined 
by showing that he was mistaken in supposing that our 
Savior spoke of all men, because his language clearly 
proved he did not; for he was speaking of a resurrection 
from [ek — out of~\ the dead, which never was applied to the 
resurrection of all men. In proof of this, I showed that 
it was the language used with reference to the raising of 
Lazarus and of our Savior; so that if it proved the resur- 
rection of all men, then all were raised with Lazarus and 
all were raised with our Savior! — two general resurrec- 
tions, the one immediately succeeding the other, which is 
absurd to suppose. To this we have had no reply — it ad- 
mits of no reply. It subvests forever the last hope of 
Universalism from the language of our Savior in refuta- 
tion of the Sadducees. It proves that the resurrection of 
the righteous is distinct from the resurrection of the wick- 
ed, and consequently nullifies the inferences of Universal- 
ism from the Apostle's language to the Corinthians. It 
was not at all necessary to show that ek was always used 
when a partial resurrection was meant; it was enough 



UNIVERSALISM. 



185 



that it was never used in any other sense. I trust I am 
now understood; and let it be distinctly remembered, that 
I defy him to shake this position. 

Mr. Pingree still complains of my course. He says that 
he called upon me in the commencement of this discussion 
to bring .forward passages of Scripture, and that I would 
not, but now, at the end of the discussion I pour them out 
like water upon him! Indeed, I supposed we were only 
about the middle of the discussion. I did not know that 
we had arrived at the end so soon! But any way, I think 
the audience will bear witness that I have kept my friend 
fully as much employed as was consistent with his comfort. 
The fact is, he has been dealing in lamentations about my 
hard usage of him all the time. In his second speech he 
wailed a little, and he has been quite lachrymal ever since. 
I cannot please him, it seems. 

There were some things in the gentleman's last speech 
that struck my ear as familiar. I had heard them before. 
It was what he said against our views of a judgment day 
— his attempt to ridicule it as contrary to justice to punish 
a man before his trial. That wit was not original — those 
bright scintillations, like the Promethean fire, were stolen, 
not like it, however, from heaven, but from — infidelity. I ' 
remember to have seen this sarcasm long since in the 
writings of Tom Paine! 

Mr. Pingree asserts most emphatically that all judgment 
is in this life; and that too, right in the face of the Apos- 
tle's declaration, "It is appointed unto men once to die, 
but AFTER THIS the judgment !" But I am not disposed 
to get round this objection against a judgment day; but 
will meet it fairly, although it originated among infidels 
and is brought against the Bible. When young, this ob- 
jection weighed with much force on my own mind, and 
caused me great anxiety. I knew the doctrine of a judg- 
ment day was taught in the Bible, as the infidels said; and 
the question with me was, must I believe the doctrine or 
reject the Bible, [t struck me as a most wretched system 
of Jurisprudence to punish a man, and then mock him 
with a trial! — to hang him first, and then try him! But 
since I have become a man I have, upon looking more 
closely into the subject, put away these childish things; 
and I am vain enough to believe that I can remove this 
frivolous objection to the satisfaction of all who hear me. 



186 



DEBATE ON 



The whole is founded upon the mistake, that we hold 
that no judgment is passed upon sinners until the last day. 
The truth is, we teach that the sinner " is condemned al- 
ready" — that "judgment has come upon all men to con- 
demnation" — that the sentence of the law is passed forth- 
with and without delay upon every transgressor; for it is 
written, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all 
things written in the book of the law to do them." And 
we teach too that every believer receives his acquital in 
this life; for he is justified by faith in our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and " shall not come into condemnation, but is pass- 
ed from death unto life." So then every man who dies 
leaves the world in a condemned or in a justified state — 
condemned for his sins, or justified by his faith. He has 
had a trial, and the court of heaven has passed sentence 
upon his case. 

But men's actions do not cease with their lives. "It is 
not all of life to live." Tom Paine still acts in his writ- 
ings. They are still exerting a most pernicious influence 
upon the minds of others. We have witnessed an instance 
of it this day, in Mr. Pingree's sarcasms against the judg- 
ment. The life of every man will make an impress upon 
others until the end of time; and with a continually en- 
larging influence. A pebble dropt into a smooth lake pro- 
duces a ripple that enlarges and spreads to the shore. So 
every man, no matter how inconsiderable, thrown into the 
ocean of time, creates a wave that must roll and spread 
until it breaks upon the shores of eternity at the last day. 
The orators of Greece and Rome have long been dead; 
and their poets centuries ago were laid in the grave; yet 
how many hearts are now kindled by the glow of their 
eloquence and waked to estac)^ by the music of their song? 
Every man has his influence on some other, either com- 
panion or relative; and this influence is imparted through 
him to others; and thus like the subtle influences of the 
electric shock extends around the entire circle of time. 
The good man ceases from his labors, but his works do 
follow him — they continue to have their influence upon 
others. It is a wise and righteous regulation then; the 
appointment of a judgment day, when, after the consum- 
mation of time, after the actions of men can no longer 
influence, for weal or for wo, the characters of their fel- 
low men, they should all stand before the same Tribunal, 



UNIVERSALIS*!. 



187 



where each could be met by all those whom his influence 
and example had benefitted or injured, and the state of 
probation be thus closed, and rewards and punishments, 
meted to each according to his deserts, be administered by 
an irrevocable and eternal sentence. 

But ' as the heavens are high above the earth, so are 
God's ways above our ways,* and the question of a Judg- 
ment day must be settled in the light of the Bible, and not 
by the Jack-o-lantern light of human philosophy. But 
before I proceed to demonstrate this doctrine by the Bible. 
I beg leave to pay attention, briefly, to Mr. Filigree's man- 
mer of disposing of certain passages which I adduced 
against his doctrine. It is wholly unnecessary to review 
all that he said on Daniel xii. 2. Tf I show that his con- 
clusions are preposterous in the extreme, of course his 
premises pass for nothing. He contended that the sleep 
in the dust of the earth,"' spoken of by the prophet, had 
reference to the moral degradation of the Jews in our 
Savior's time; and was nothing more than moral sleep; 
and that the awaking also meant to be aroused from this 
moral slumber. Every one must perceive that if such 
poetical license be allowed in interpretation, the plain letter 
of the Bible may be set aside in every case, and the whole 
of it shown to be unmeaning jargon. But let us see how 
his reading will appear : " And many of them that moral- 
ly sleep in the moral dust of the moral earth shall morally 
awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and 
everlasting contempt."' Now the force of this interpreta- 
tion may be perceived, when you remember, that the 
wicked are to awake out of their moral sleep to be put 
back into their repose again forever! They are to awake 
from moral degradation in the dust of the earth, to ever- 
lasting moral degradation in the dust of the earth!! In 
other words, they are not aroused from their moral slum- 
ber at all!!! This needs no refutation. It destrovs it- 
self. 

His comments on John v. 28, 29, were of a kindred na- 
ture. The " graves" spoken of were moral graves! Aye, 
moral graves! ! I would be happy to hear a description of 
the length, and breadth, and depth of these, to me, novel 
tenements. I am persuaded that only a very vivid imagi- 
nation would be adequate to do justice to these fancy 
abodes. I shrewdly suspect they have " a local habitation 



188 



DEBATE ON 



and a name" only in the very fruitful fancy of my oppo- 
nent, and that he only can give a drawing of them. But 
admit the explanation, and then the passage reads thus : 
" The hour is coming, in the which all that are in their 
moral graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; 
they that have done good in their moral graves (!!!) unto 
the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil in 
their moral graves, unto the resurrection of damnation!" 
Oh, the beauties of Universalism! Here we have men 
doing good when morally dead and buried! and men taken 
out of their moral graves where they were doing evil and 
raised to damnation!! I will take it as a particular favor, 
if Mr. Pingree will honor me with the precise distinc/ion 
he makes in the condition of those in their moral graves, 
and those in a state of damnation. No doubt too it will be 
a great satisfaction to the audience. But enough upon 
this most unique exposition. I need not make its absurdi- 
ty more apparent. 

You were told, that almost every passage adduced to 
prove endless punishment, had been explained away, by 
one or another of the Orthodox writers. Were this even 
so, I am prepared to show that they have all been explain- 
ed back again by Mr. Pingree's very dear brethren and 
fellow laborers. I can, if necessary, give him concession 
for concession. I am prepared for all such weapons. But 
he has a most unfair way of making men speak in his fa- 
vor. For instance : I observed that in the extract from 
Dr. Lightfoot, which he read at second-hand, the Doctor 
said the passage might refer to punishment in this life; 
and this is produced as a concession that it did refer to 
punishment in this life! This is the worst of garbling. 
The distance between what may and what does exist is 
what Dr. Lightfoot lacked of making the concession as- 
cribed to him. And if the other concessions alluded to 
are of a piece with this, and I apprehend they are, then 
have these Orthodox writers been most shamefully gar- 
bled. I do not charge this upon my opponent. I believe 
him incapable of such conduct. He never saw the au- 
thors, I suppose, whom he has quoted. He is dependent 
for what he knows of them on the little book he has in his 
hand. But concessions, no matter from what quarter they 
come, can never make good sense of nonsense; or make 
any one receive his notions of moral graves and moral 
dust of the earth. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



189 



But I have been detained too long from another matter of 
more importance : — Does the Bible teach that a day shall 
come when all must appear before the Son of God, and be 
judged for their sins? Will Jesus come again to judge the 
quick and the dead 1 We propose now to examine this 
matter in the light of the Bible. 

The Universalists are much divided in their views of 
this subject. Scarcely any two have written alike. God 
has confounded the language of the builders of this Babel. 
Mr. Pingree, I suppose from the hints he has let fall, be- 
lieves that there is no such coming of our Lord — that his 
second coming was to destroy Jerusalem. That the judg- 
ment is in this life, and has been going on since the intro- 
duction of the Gospel dispensation. I admit, as 1 have 
already said, that there is a judgment passed on the actions 
of men in this world; but 1 expect to show that there is a 
day of general judgment which is yet future; and that 
Christ will then appear in person to judge the quick and 
the dead. The passages are so numerous to these points, 
that 1 shall have but little time to comment : indeed they 
are so plain as to need no comment : 

Matt. x. 15 — "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more 
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day 
of Judgment, than for that city." So it appears that our 
Savior declared that there was a day of future reckoning 
for Sodom and Gomorrah. These cities were destroyed 
by fire from heaven long before the advent of Jesus in the 
flesh; but still he says they are to be judged in a future 
day also. I have seen a foolish criticism in a Universalist 
book to this effect. i That our Savior said the land and 
not the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah !' So it was 
Jerusalem, and Judea, and the region round about the Jor- 
don, and not the inhabitants of those places, who were 
baptized of John in the river of Jordon confessing their 
sins!!! See Mat. iii. 5. When such criticisms are in- 
dulged in, it is a proof that the authors feel the weak- 
ness of their cause. 

Matt. xi. 22 and 24 — "But I say unto you [Chorazin and 
Bethsaida,] it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon 
at the day of Judgment than for you. * * * But I say 
unto you, [Capernaum] That it shall be more tolerable 
for the land of Sodom in the day of Judgment than for 
thee." These correspond to the passage first quoted, 



190 



DEBATE ON 



Here then it is declared, that there is a future trial — " at 
the day of Judgment'" — in reserve for Tyre, Sidon, and 
Sodom, who shall be judged, but their cause will not be 
so desperate, as that of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Caper- 
naum. 

Matt. xii. 36 — " But I say unto you, That every idle 
word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof 
in the day of Judgment.''' 1 Here, in language as specific 
as it is possible to be uttered, it is said that all men, for all 
their idle words shall give an account on a particular day 
— the day of Judgment. It is not possible for our doctrine 
to be asserted in plainer terms. 

Same chap. 41 and 42 — "The men of Ninevah shall 
rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn 
it; because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and 
behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The Queen of the 
South shall rise up in the Judgment with this generation; 
for she came from the uttermost part of the earth to hear 
the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solo- 
mon is here." Here is a judgment after death of the gen- 
eration to which the Savior was speaking. Yes, the Nin- 
ivites and the Queen of the South long before dead and 
the generation then living were to rise together " in the 
judgment." The blind can see that here is asserted a judg- 
ment after death. 

Matt. xxv. 31-44, also 41 and 46 — "When the son of 
man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with 
him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and 
before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall sep- 
arate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his 
sheep from the goats : and he shall set the sheep on his 
right hand and the goats on his left. Then shall the King 
say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my 
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world. * * * * Then shall he say 
unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 
* * * * ^ nc i these shall go away into everlasting pun- 
ishment, but the righteous unto life eternal." I am aware 
that Univorsalists apply all this to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. But there is nothing recorded in the history of 
that event at all corresponding to this description. But I 
will await the advance of Mr. Pingree on this passage, be- 
fore I make further remarks. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



191 



John xii. 48 — "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not 
my words, hath one that judgeth him: {he word that 1 
have spoken, the same shall judge at the last day." If 
there shall come such a time as the last day, then men will 
be judged in it: or else, we are misled by language as 
plain as ever fell from the lips of the Son of God. 

John xiv. 3—" And if I go and prepare a place for you, 
I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where 
1 am, there ye may be also.'" Here the Savior promises 
to come a second time. Has this promise been fulfilled? 

Acts i. 10, 11 — "And while they looked steadfastly to- 
ward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by 
them in white apparel; which said also, Ye men of Gali- 
lee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same 
Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so 
come in like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven." 
Will any man dare say this has been fulfilled? — "I pause 
for a reply." 

Acts iii. 20, 21 — "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which 
before was preached unto you : whom the heavens must 
receive until the times of the restitution of all things," 
Surely the most brazen impudence would shrink from an 
effort to apply this passage to the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, or to any event that has transpired in the history of 
the world. 

Acts x. 42 — " And he commanded us to preach unto the 
people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of 
God to be the Judge of the quick and dead" So the Apos- 
tles were commanded to preach that Jesus would judge 
the living and the dead: but Universalists preach that he 
will judge the living and not the dead! Who commanded 
them so to preach? Not Jesus, unles he has revoked the 
command given to the Apostles. 

Acts xvii. 30, 31 — God " now commandeth all men every 
where to repent : because he hath appointed a day in which 
he uill judge the world in righteousness, by that man 
whom he hath ordained." Here Paul declares to the 
Athenians that God had appointed a day in the future, when 
the world will be judged. Universalists say that there is 
no such day appointed!! Thus flatly contradicting the 
word of an inspired Apostle ! 

Acts xxiv. 25 — " And as he reasoned of righteousness, 
temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled." That 



192 



DEBATE ON 



is, Paul as he was commanded, preached unto Felix and 
testified, that Jesus would judge the quick and dead — that 
there was a judgment to come. And I suspect from his 
character that Felix was something of a Universalist, and 
hence the propriety of that subject's being urged upon 
him. He was unrighteous, and hence the Apostle reason- 
ed of righteousness; he was intemperate, and hence the 
subject of temperance was urged ; and hence I have con- 
cluded that perhaps he was tinctured with something kind- 
red to Universalism, and therefore Paul reasoned with him 
about a judgment to come! But this is conjecture of 
course, and you must take it only for what it is worth. 

Romans ii. 12 and 16— "For as many as have sinned 
without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as 
have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law, — in 
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus 
Christ, according to my Gospel." Now into what other 
meaning can this language be tortured, than that there is 
a day in the future when men shall be judged? 

Romans xiv. 10-12 — "For we shall all stand before the 
judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith 
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue 
shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give 
account of himself to God." If all men were standing be- 
fore the judgment-seat of Christ, why did the Apostle use 
the language, all shall stand? And why say all li shall give 
account? " Was he so ignorant of the propriety of speech, 
as to use the future instead of the present tense 1 And 
when was it since the beginning of the world, that every 
knee bowed and every tongue confessed unto God? Just 
so certain as this is future, just so certain is it yet to come 
to pass that " we shall all appear before the judgment-seat 
of Christ" and "every one of us shall give an account of 
himself to God." The same inspired pen, in the same 
connexion and in similar terms, has recorded both events. 

2 Cor. v. 10 — "For we must all appear before the judg- 
ment-seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the things 
done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether 
it be good or bad." This is a parallel passage to the last. 
If as Universalists teach, all men are constantly before 
Christ 's judgment seat, why did Paul say " we must all ap- 
pear before" it ? Why say that they would then receive 
a ccording as they had done good or evil in the body; when 



UNIVERSAL ISM. 



193 



they must have already received it, according to Univer- 
sal ism? 

Col. iii. 4 — e< When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, 
then shall ye also appear with him in glory." If he never 
was to appear again except to destroy Jerusalem, what 
could the Apostle have meant? Surely, he did not mean 
that the Colossian church would appear in glory at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem? And if they did so appear, what 
pen, sacred or profane, has recorded the event? 

1 Thess. iv. 12 unto v. 4—" But I would not have you to 
be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, 
that ye sorrow not even as others which have no hope. For 
if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them 
also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this 
we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are 
alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not pre- 
vent them which are asleep : for the Lord himself shall de- 
scend from heaven with a shout, with lhe voice of the. arch- 
angel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ 
shall rise first : when we which are alive and remain shall 
be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the 
Lord 'in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 
Wherefore, comfort one another with these words. But of 
the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that 
1 write unto you : for you yourselves know perfectly, that 
the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 
For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden 
destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman 
with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, 
are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a 
thief." What language could be more plain? And could 
it refer to the destruction of Jerusalem? But the Apostle 
renews the subject in his next epistle : 2 Thess. 1.7-10 
— "And to you who are troubled, rest with us, wnen the 
Lord Jesus shall he revealed from heaven icith his might?/ 
angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that 
know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of out Lord 
Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting de- 
struction from the presence of the Lord, and from the 
glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in 
his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (he- 
cause our testimony among you was believed) in that 
day." Here is a second coming of our Lord ■asserted in 
13 



194 



DEBATE ON 



terms that cannot be applied to any occurrence at the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. But the subject is resumed in the 
next chapter, in a manner that settles the question beyond 
controversy. 2 Thess. ii. 1-5 — "Now we beseach you, 
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by 
our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon 
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by 
word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is 
at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means : for that 
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, 
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition : 
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called 
God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in 
the lemple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Re- 
member ye not, that when I was with you, I told you these 
things," etc. — read the whole chapter. Now, on this pass- 
age, permit me to remark, First, That the Thessalonians, 
it appears, supposed from the first Epistle of Paul, that 
the^day of the Lord was at hand. This was true if the 
destruction of Jerusalem was the event alluded to. That 
was at hand. In about sixteen years from the date of that 
letter, and Jerusalem was no more. The Roman plough 
had torn up its very foundations, not leaving one stone 
upon another. But the Apostle assured them that the day 
of the Lord was not at hand; therefore, he could not have 
alluded to the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Second. He assures them that Jesus would not come, 
until there should be a falling away, and the man of sin 
should be revealed. Did this take place before the de- 
struction of Jerusalem? If so, when did this falling away 
transpire? And who was this man of sin? And he as- 
sures them, that there were then hindrances in the way; 
that the mystery of iniquity then began to work. Were 
these hindrances removed in sixteen years? Did this 
mighty engine of iniquity develop itself and go into full 
operation in that time? Did the son of perdition set in the 
temple of God, showing himself that he was God? The 
most vivid imagination cannot, before the destruction of 
Jerusalem, conjure up any thing that bears a resemblance 
to the matters here predicted. And besides, Bishop New- 
ton, whom the Universalists delight to honor — and since 
Mr. Pingree has adduced concessions he shall have them 
to his heart's content, and I will mete unto him according 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



195 



as lie has measured unto me — Bishop Newton, I say, 
shows conclusively, that this man of sin was the papacy — 
that monstrous system of superstition and fraud, which for 
centuries has flooded the world with blood and errors. 
And in the Pope of Rome, claiming to be universal bishop 
— aye, Christ's vicar, assuming the divine attributes of 
holiness and infallibility — disposing of crowns, and king- 
doms, and continents, as if the earth was his property and 
the workmanship of his hands — asserting absolute domin- 
ion over the affairs, temporal and spiritual, of all mankind 
— requiring the most abject homage Gf all orders of men, 
from the king to the beggar — -and wearing at his girdle 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven and even of hades, so 
that he should open and none could shut, and he should 
shut and none could open, we see the fulfillment of the 
Apostle's prophesy — we recognize the original of the 
Apostle's portrait. Now this man of sin had to appear, 
and rule, and fall, before the coming of our Lord. Then 
he has not come yet. 

But Finally, Why should the Thessalonians be alarmed 
at the fate of Jerusalem? What had they to apprehend 
from it? They were in no way to be affected by it, and 
history proves that they were not at all affected by it. 
Why then, I ask, should they be in apprehension ! And 
why did the Apostle treat the subject as one that did vital- 
ly concern them? I defy the powers of darkness to ans- 
wer these inquiries upon the hypothesis of Universalism. 
The destruction of Jerusalem did not concern the Thessa- 
lonians either temporally or spiritually : But the coming 
of the Lord Jesus, spoken of by Paul in his letters to 
them, was intimately and mightily associated with their 
spiritual interests, as appears from the Apostle's language: 
Therefore, he could not have alluded to the destruction of 
Jerusalem. Now I challenge Mr. Pingree to show any 
defect in this syllogism,- and he must prove it radically 
defective, or else admit that Jesus will come to judge the 
world. 

2 Tim. iv. 1 — "I charge thee, therefore, before God 
and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and 
the dead at his appearing and kingdom." Here the Apos- 
tle asserts that Jesus shall judge the living and the dead? 
Has this event ever occurred? Never ! And has Univer- 
salism, in order to maintain its unhallowed crusade against 



196 



DEBATE ON 



the truth, the unblushing effrontery to say, that it will 
never occur? 

Titus ii. 12, 13 — "Teaching us, that denying ungodli- 
ness, and wordly lu9ts,we should live soberly, righteously, 
and godly in this present world j looking for that blessed 
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our 
Savior Jesus Chsist^ 1 This means, according to Univer- 
salism, that the Gospel teaches all Christians to deny un- 
godliness and to live piously in view of that blessed hope 
and glorious appearing of Jesus Christ in the destruction of 
Jerusalem! ! YVhat folly! 

1 Peter iv. 5 — "Who shall give account to him that 
is ready to judge the quick and dead.' 1 '' And yet Univer- 
salists tell us the dead are not to be judged at all! 

2 Peter ii. 4 and 9 — " For if God spared not the angels 
that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them 
into chains of darkness; to be reserved unto judgment. * 
* * The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of 
temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of 
judgment to be punished." The Orthodox speak the very 
language of the Apostle upon this subject : how then dare 
the Universalists charge us with not holding the truth, 
and admit at the same time that Peter's is the language of 
inspiration? What language could be plainer than the 
Apostle's, to assert a judgment day, when the wicked shall 
be punished ? 

2 Peter iii. 10, 12 — "But the day of the Lord will come 
as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass 
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with 
fervent heat, and the earth also and the works that are 
therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these 
things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought 
ye to be in all holy conversation and goodness, looking for 
and hastening unto the coming of the day of God, where- 
in the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the 
elements shall melt with fervent heat!" Has this event 
ever transpired ? When and how? Are not the heavens 
still above our heads and the earth beneath our feet? Or 
will it be urged that all this was merely poetical? — extra- 
vagant hyperbole? — that it never has occurred and never 
will occur? Were we to admit this to be so, we would 
surrender the Bible into the hands of infidelity — no man 
could defend it. 



UNIVERSALIS!!!. 



197 



1 John iv. 17 — "Herein is our love made perfect, that 
we may have boldness in the day of Judgment." Here is 
also taught the appointment of a specific day, called " the 
day of Judgment." 

Jude vi. — "And the angels which kept not their first 
esiate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in 
everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of 
the great day" And yet it is denied that there is such a 
"judgment" and such a "great day." 

Jude 14 and 15 — "And Enoch also, the seventh from 
Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord com- 
eth with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment 
upon all, and to convine all that are ungodly among them 
of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly com- 
mitted, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sin- 
ners have spoken against him." Has this prophesy been 
fulfilled ? It has not. Nothing has ever transpired in the 
history of the world like it. Will it be fulfilled ? Yes, 
or the word of God has failed. Then it saps the founda- 
tion of Universalism, for if the prophet had been thinking 
of that system, he could not more pointedly have branded 
falsehood inafiacably upon its front. 

Rev. i. 4 — "Grace be unto you and peace from him 
which is, and which was, and which is to come." It is the 
general opinion of the learned, that this book was written 
after the destruction of Jerusalem; and yet John says, 
Jesus " is to come." 

Rev. xx. 11, 15 — " And I saw a great white throne, and 
him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the hea- 
vens fled away; and there was no place for them. And I 
saw the dead small and great stand before God : and the 
books were opened : and another book was opened, which 
is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of the 
things which were written in the books, according to their 
works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; 
and death and hell [hades] delivered up the dead which 
were in them; and they were judged every man according 
to their works. And death and hell [hades] were cast into 
the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whoso- 
ever was not found written in the book of life was cast into 
the lake of fire.*' 

To conclude on this subject, I would remark, that if the 
Scriptures do not teach that there is to be a judgment day 



198 



DEBATE ON 



— a day when Jesus will come to judge the quick and the 
dead, then it is not possible for human language to convey 
such an idea. Mr. Pingree might just as well labor to 
convince you that I have not taught such a thing, and that 
no person ever advanced such a sentiment! I have not 
and I cannot, nor is it in the power of man to use more 
strong, clear, and definite terms to convey the idea of such 
a period, than are used in the passages I have read. If 
they do not assert that doctrine, neither have I, nor has 
any man among the living or the dead. When my oppo- 
nent shall convince you, that when I say? there is to be a 
judgment day, when the quick and the dead shall be judged 
by Jesus Christ — that all are to stand before his- judgment 
seat, etc., that my language cannot mean what it clearly 
imports— that I mean nothing more than what is daily 
transpiring, or that I have reference to the destruction of a 
village of Indian huts or the burning of a prairie, then I 
will 1 believe — no — I dare not even then believe that holy 
men of old, recording the oracles of heaven, said one thing 
and meant another! — that when they might have used 
plain language, they intentionally used that which was 
calculated to make false impressions and to lead into the 
most fatal errors! ! — that they so wrote, that no man could 
arrive at their meaning without giving the plain letter of 
their declarations the lie direct!!! Ask me to believe 
this, and you break me from the sheet anchor of my hopes, 
and bid me cast the Bible to the flames as a tissue of the 
most monstrous falehoods. No, unless you bid me to re- 
ject as false the plain and obvious meaning of God's word, 
I am bound to believe* that " as it is appointed unto men 
once to die, but after this the Judgment; so Christ was 
once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that 
look for him, shall he appear the second time without 

SIN UNTO SALVATION." 

I wish to make one other point before I conclude, and 
I invite the gentleman's especial attention to it. I have 
already shown that the very strongest language was used 
by the divine writers to express the duration of the pun- 
ishment of the wicked, as " everlasting fire," " everlasting 
destruction," " suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," 
"in danger of eternal damnation," etc.,. which, if interpre- 
ted according to the laws of language, (and so, I insist, 
they must be interpreted,) prove the endless punishment 



U N I V E B S A tl I S M 



199 



of the wicked beyond question or cavil. The word employ- 
ed in these quotations in the original is aionios ; the most 
appropriate word ihat could be employed, if the writer in- 
tended to teach the doctrine of endless punishment, and 
the most inappropriate and unfortunate of all words in 
that copious language if they did not. I ask Mr. Pingree 
if a stronger word for endless duration in that language 
can be found? He has not answered that there was: and 
of course by his silence surrenders the point. There is 
another word of the same family, aion, used in reference 
to the same subject. This word is used denoting futurity. 
fifty-eigKf times. I believe, in {he New Testament: and fifty- 
three of these, it is confessed on all hands, to be used to ex- 
press indefinite time — in the sense of everlasting or with- 
out end. The remaining times it is used with reference to 
punishment. I will give some specimens of its usage in 
relation to the punishment of the wicked, to the happiness 
of the righteous, and as applied to God. 

Of the wicked, it is said, Mark iii. 29, "he that shall 
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, hath never forgive- 
ness." Of God, it is said, Rom. ix. 5. " God blessed for- 
ever." Of the righteous, it is said, John viii. 52. 53 — "he 
shall never see death. * * * He shall never taste of 
death/ 1 

Of the wicked. 2 Peter iil 17 — "To whom the mists of 
darkless is reserve:! forever." Of G::l. 2 Cor. xi. 13 — 
" Who is blessed foreverxoee." Of the righteous, John 
vi. 51, "he shall live forever." 

Of the wicked. Rev. xiv. 1 1 — ' : And the smoke of their 
torment ascendeth up forever and ever." Of God, Rev. 
iv. 9, "who liveth forever and ever." Of the righteous. 
Rev. xxii. 5, " and they shall reign forever and ever. 

Of the icicked, Rev. xix. 3, " And her smoke rose up for 
ever and ever." Of God, Rev. iv. 10. "worship him that 
liveth forever and ever." Of the righteous, 1 John ii. 
17. "he abideth forever." 

Of the icicked, Rev. xx. 10, i; And shall be tormented 
day and night forever and ever." Of God, Rev. xv. 7. 
" who liveth forever and ever." Of the righteous, John 
xi. 26, " he shall never die." 

In just as strong terms, aye, in the very terms then that 
the eternity of God is asserted, or that the happiness of 
the righteous shall be endless, it is asserted that the pun- 



200 



DEBATE ON 



ishment of the wicked shall be endless. Deny the latter, 
and you must deny the farmer. They stand or fall tcv- 
gether. 

[MR. PINGREE'S NINTH SPEECH.] 

Respected Friends: — My remarks, this afternoon, must 
necessarily be desultory, in consequence of having to re- 
ply to* so much of the speech of the forenoon, as time will 
permit me to notice. I can lay down no plan for pursuing 
my argument, for the necessity of following him. 

I shall commence where Mr. Waller commenced. 

He attempts to produce an impression upon the audi- 
ence that I have presented all the arguments that could be 
presented, on behalf of the doctrine I advocate. Hence 
that last quotation from the poets, which he did not trans- 
late. I will merely state that I had intended to present in 
my speeches down to this point, all the arguments which I 
meant to use on this occasion, except such incidental ones 
as might come up in the remainder of the debate. I might 
have occupied time by quoting many more passages; but 
it has not been necessary. As has been well remarked, 
one declaration of God, if plain, and understood, is enough 
— each passage is of itself sufficient. Yet for the purpose 
of having your attention directied to the whole subject, 
though not absolutely necessary, I presented the seven 
principal arguments which establish the doctrine. Each 
is plain, and clear, and simple. They correspond to the 
seven pillars of the house, spoken of by Solomon, in Prov. 
ix. 1: "Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn 
out her seven pillars. 

All Mr. Waller's remarks upon moral resurrectioDS in 
re'ation to the loth chapter of 1 Corinthians pass for no- 
thing. He does not himself "believe anything about it. He 
does himself believe it relates to the resurrection of the 
naturally dead to the immortality. 

He calls this a mistake, which I said about the Baptists 
unchurching each other. If it is not true, why do they 
not commune together at the Lord's Supper ? On what 
ground do they exclude each other from that rite? But 
there is strife between those Baptists and the Sprinklers, 
and has been for centuries — bitter strife; and that between 
good men, who all expect to go to heaven. I say they can 



\ 

UNIVERSALISM. 



201 



never dwell together in heaven, peaceably, unless they are 
changed at or after death. 

In relation to his remarks about the sinfulness of the 
flesh, allow me to remark, that according to Paul and 
others, all are under the influences of sin, while " subject 
to vanity," in this life, but when the flesh is thrown off, 
the spirit is free. Mr. Waller will admit this in reference 
to some, but why are some deprived of their bad disposi- 
tions in a future state, while others are not ? Men die in 
different states. How is it that immortal spirits are able to 
sin in the future as here ? I thought all the evil influences 
of "the flesh" were confined to this life, and did not 
extend to the future and incorruptible state. The Devil 
and Sin, and Death, are to be destroyed by Christ; so that 
they shall exist no longer. Where then are the evil influ- 
ences to lead men to sin hereafter? 1 put it to you, if it 
can be so, in the nature of things. Mr. Waller has now 
given us the list of passages — some thirty or forty. I can- 
not examine them all. What shall I do? He represents 
me as complaining, if he quoted Scripture; and also, if h$ 
did not. I have not done so; nor do I wish to do so. I 
only asked him in the beginning of the discussion, to quote 
some of his leading passages in season for free and full 
discussion; and not to pour them out in a mass, when it 
was too late to give them a due examination. But he has 
chosen not to do so. He rather depends upon the preju- 
dices of his auditors to explain all the passages as they are 
commonly explained. I do not do so. I give two or three 
at a time, of the leading passages on my side. I might 
have thrown forty or fifty texts upon his attention at once, 
as he has done to me. What, then, shall I do now? 1 
must, from the necessity of the case, select and examine a 
few of the most prominent, if he will not select them him- 
self. 

One of the strongest of the passages quoted by him is, 
that some have " never" forgiveness— but are in danger 
of " eternal damnation." I first remark, that if this refers 
to a future life, the inquiry arises, what does it mean? It 
is said " all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiv- 
en unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 
shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor the world 
to come." Therefore some sins may be forgiven in the 
world to come, aside from blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 



202 



DEBATE ON 



The Romish Purgatory, instead of the Protestant Hell, in- 
tervening between death and the resurrection, would be 
established by the passage. Does Mr. Waller believe this? 
He must, if it relates to the future state of existence. 

I shall not dwell upon the phrases, " hath never forgive- 
ness," and "eternal damnation," till afterwards. All the 
passages which say 46 God will not have mercy," etc., are not 
to be understood as extending through our whole existence. 
For a certain time, he will not have mercy, and we are not 
not to receive pardon. But afterwards, we shall. 

Paul says that murderers, etc., shall not inherit the king- 
dom of God. This is plain, positive, and explicit. But 
does he say they will never come into it? Shall they by no 
means, nor ever inherit it? Paul does not say so; for in 
that case, none could he saved ! but the next verse reads, 
" and such also were some of yotj." But it says afterwards, 
" But ye are washed,'" 1 etc. So the sinner can by no means 
enter the kingdom of God while in a sinful state; but the 
grace of God may afterwards ft him to enter, as in that 
case; and in all cases, finally, as I have abundantly proved. 

So that none of these passages have any bearing on the 
point. Jesus Christ said once to his disciples, including 
Peter, " whither I go, you cannot come." He might have 
said, never; " but," he adds, " thou shalt follow me after- 
wards.^ And so it is with all the other passages of the 
same kind. This illustration bears on them all. None of 
these passages are in opposition to the doctrine of final 
universal salvation. They only relate to a certain period 
of time. 

My friend attempted to make out that there was some 
inconsistency between a man being made not sinful, and 
being cleansed of sin. He says, "no man liveth and sin- 
neth not." Therefore all die sinners, of course. He in- 
sists there is no change after death, except that the saints 
have a new body. If all die sinners, and there is no 
change after death in their moral character, then how are 
any to be saved? Some men are justified and become 
righteous in this life, to some extent; but it does not follow 
that they will never sin again. In a future life they may 
hold on, but not always here. I claim that a man may sin 
forty, or forty thousand times, and yet be cleansed after- 
wards. The inconsistency rests upon his own head; be- 
cause if all men sin while on earth, and all sinners are 



UVIVEESALISM. 



203 



damned eternally, and no moral change takes place after 
death, all mankind, without a single exception, must go to 
Hell ! Here we have universal damnation preached as a 
substitute for universal salvation ! 

He attempts again to ridicule the idea that men were 
punished for sin and then forgiven. Why did he not set 
aside the passages of God's Word that speak of it ? Sup- 
pose human governments should follow this example, and 
forgive or pardon criminals, merely because they should 
ask it? as it is said God will do — in that sense of the word, 
forgiveness. When men ask to be forgiven and repent, 
where in all human governments is there one that pardons 
them on these terms? It would not do, then, to apply the 
law Divine, as expounded by Mr. Waller, to the operation 
of any human government. It would throw all things into 
anarchy and misrule. 

He ridicules the idea that forgiveness, and cleansing, 
and taking away sin, are the same thing. He says that 
forgiveness is only taking away the punishment of sin. Is 
that any better? Does it correspond better with the idea 
of purification, or making holy, and righteous; that is, the 
justifying the sinner? Does that change, or cleanse, or 
wash the sinner? No ; it merely delivers him from im- 
pending danger in the life to come. The ridicule falls 
with tenfold more force upon his own head than upon 
mine. 

Referring to the resurrection, he speaks of the justdead, 
and the unjust dead. I dont know that the dead, as such, 
are either just or unjust, or have any character at all; but 
the " just" and " unjust' 1 are those who are alive, and 
doing justly or unjustly. After they are dead, I dont know 
that they have that character. I dont think the Bible says 
so. His own quotation from David, who speaks of not giv- 
ing thanks " in Hell" or Hades, shows what use is made of 
that word in the Bible. Solomon says, " There is no wis- 
dom, nor knowledge, nor divice in the grave" — Heb. Sheol. 
Sep. Gr. Hades. Is there, then, any character ? 

Mr. Waller attempted to set aside the idea of conversion 
in the grave. What Universalist has ever held that? I do 
not, at least. In the grave they cannot praise God, " nor 
have they any more a reward." Knowledge and reward 
are in this life; and after that, a resurrection to immortal 
life and happiness, as the free gift of God. So much is to 



204 



DEBATE ON 



be remembered respecting the resurrection of the "just 
and unjust dead." 

He denies, upon the strength of the Greek word ek, 
that the resurrection spoken of in the 15th of I Corinthi- 
ans, is a resurrection of all men. The Savior settles that 
question as well as Paul. Paul in 15 Cor. says, that all 
who die in Adam shall rise in Christ, and to the glorious 
liberty of the sons of God. Jesus Christ says, aside from 
that declaration of Paul, that they shall be as the angels of 
God in heaven; and adds, "all live unto Him." Does it 
require no change after death, to make even the best men 
" equal to the angels of God?" 

He quotes the allusion of Scripture to Moses and the 
burning bush, where Christ says, that " God is not the God 
of the dead, but of the living," to show that Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, were still living, when that occurred, and 
not dead. And he says "all the saints live unto him." 
Jesus Christ does not say that: he says, " for ALL live unto 
him." That is proof in our favor. "All live unto God;" 
that is, prospectively, in the sense of being raised from the 
dead to glory; and the condition of holy angels. The 
word ek, amounts to nothing, therefore, in opposition to 
our Faith. Enough on that point. 

One remark on Matthew xxv. 41: " Depart ye cursed 
into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels." 
Pie argues that this applies to a future life. You recollect 
the passage from Corinthians: "deliver such an one to Sa- 
tan, for the destruction of the flesh," etc. There the sin- 
ner, delivered over to Satan, was spoken of as " saved in 
the day of the Lord Jesus." Was this man, when deliver- 
ed to Satan, delivered to endless fire? No; for he is after- 
wards pardoned, because he had suffered enough. The 
Devil himself is to be destroyed; and all they will be " de- 
livered,''' who were in his power. — Heb. ii. 14, 15. Are we 
to suffer by the Devil, when the Devil is dead? Besides, 
what power will there be in fire, in the immortal state? 
What influence can it have on an incorruptible spirit? 
What spirit ever wanted water, when it had left the body, 
and was in Hades? alluded to in the Parable of the Rich 
Man and Lazarus, and said to be in the future life, if the 
spirit is exempt entirely from the influence of the bodily 
appetites? So much for the influence of fire upon incor- 
ruptible beings; hence it can not be in eternity. 



UNIVERSALIS X, 



205 



He said that Universalists had borrowed their argument 
about men being punished before they were judged, from 
Thomas Paine. Voltaire, and Rousseau. Does he wish to 
reject the doctrine of universal salvation, merely because 
Tom Paine had one idea thai we have, and identify him 
with us? Is that right? Is it an argument to be expected 
from a man who intends to do fairly? to endeavor to identify 
us with infidels? Suppose Mr. Waller was to preach the 
doctrine that there was only one God, and Tom Paine also 
. :-d the same thing; and an Atheist should say, ! I 
have heard Tom Paine, the infidel, use the same argument ! 
Would he esteem it fair, because he happened to agree 
with Tom Paine in one particular, that he should be held a 
follower of Paine, or that the point in which he agreed was 
therefore of course false? 

But it happens that Tom Paine was not a Universalist. 
He believed in punishment in a future lift, for sins com- 
mitted here. He belongs therefore rather to Mr. Waller, 
than to me. I acknowledge him not; he held and taught 
the Partialis! doctrine of a future judgment and punish » 
ment with Mr. Waller. Let him not speak lightly of such 
a friend. 

Lord Herbert, another celebrated infidel, was also a be- 
liever in endless and infinite misery in a future life. He 
would also belong to Mr. Waller's party, upon the same 
principle which he attempted to apply to me. But I pro- 
test against any such manoeuvres, and such appeals to pre- 
judice to help out an argument. Tom Paine may have 
held some good sentiments ; so may Voltaire. But as 
infidels, we have no lot or part with them. You know it. 
You all know it: Mr. Waller knows it, and knows that it is 
gross injustice to class us as his disciples. 

He has said that he was once nigh upon the borders of 
the same difficulty. That the same thought arose in his 
mind, that it was unjust to punish before judgment, suppo- 
sing the theory to be true that men go to Hell when they 
die. and that they are all to be judged together at some 
future period. But at last it occurred to him that the 
reason of this was that all the evil works that sinners do 
in their lives, survive them, and operate injuriously on 
mankind long after they are dead; and consequently the 
whole consequences of their sins cannot be judged of be- 
fore the final winding up of the affairs of men. There is 



206 



DEBATE ON 



an interval, sometimes, of thousands of years between the 
sin and the judgment of it; and in the mean time the pun- 
ishment is going on in Hell, from which they are never to 
get out. 

In reply to this, let us suppose Tom Paine had been con- 
verted to Christianity, before he died ; and suppose him 
brought to judgment. Would he be judged for his evil 
works ? Mr. Waller himself does not believe it. This 
explanation then goes for nothing. While the wicked 
work he wrote was still on earth, to work its evil influence, 
he is not judged by its evil influence ; but goes to heaven, 
and enjoys the blessed presence of God, while his works 
are working the damnation of thousands here on earth du- 
ring an indefinite period of time, because by changing be- 
fore he dies, and being converted, all his sins are washed 
away ; he is not judged or punished for them. His argu- 
ment, therefore, is of no consequence in getting over the 
difficulty. 

The gentleman has said a great deal about " moral 
graves.*'' I never said any thing about " moral graves." 
1 said that in certain passages containing the word 
" graves," that word was not used in the signification of 
the state of the naturally and literally dead; — that it was 
used figuratively, referring to the degradation of man in 
his present life; and I proved it by Ezekiel, where the men 
were still living, to whom the same phrases were applied : 
" brought up out of their graves" — not " moral graves;" 
but something different from the natural signification. His 
attempt to cast ridicule upon me by reading passages and in- 
troducing the phrase " moral graves" into them, was use- 
less, and not to the point. But he said " those who do 
good in the moral graves come forth to life." Says the sa- 
cred writer, (Acts x. and xi.,) Cornelius the centurian was 
a good and devout man; but it was necessary for him to 
have something else, before he could enjoy the resurrec- 
tion to life — the moral resurrection. He must hear the 
Gospel, so as to be "saved." Peter instructed him: he had 
not known the full Gospel, before: he was in "the graves" 
of darkness and ignorance. Others had heard, and not 
believed. Hence they came fourth to the resurrection of 
damnation; as in the case of the "five foolish virgins," 
in Matt, xxv.; while the others, though in the darkness of 
night, watched, were ready when the voice was heard, 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



207 



" Behold the bridegroom cometh I" and received the full 
life of the Gospel. This parable illustrates the 5ih fo 
John. 

Before going further, I will make some remarks upon 
the kingdom and coming of Jesus Christ, after his first 
personal coming to offer himself a sacrifice for the human 
race. That he was to come again, there is no dispute, 
Mr* Waller asserts that his second coming is to be in per- 
son, and is yet future ; and that he never has come since 
his first coming in person to give himself a ransom for 
man. 

I will now state the doctrine as we hold it. After the 
resurrection and ascension of Christ, he was to come in 
" power," and in his kingdom, and in the glory of the Fa- 
ther, in the life-time of some who heard him speak; and 
then there was to be another, a personal coming, at the 
resurrection of man. In his coming in his kingdom, the 
judgment was to commence. In his third coming, there is 
no judgment. The judgment is then closed, the kingdom 
returned to God, and He become " all in all." There are 
at least three comings of Christ declared. The second was 
to be in power, not in person. The two others are per- 
sonal, although in a restricted sense he may come fre- 
quently : any display of his power may be called his com- 
ing. Now for the proof: In 16th Matt. 27 and 28, we read 
thus: ''For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of 
of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward 
every man according to his works." [I suppose this to be 
the coming at the full establishment of the kingdom of 
God. The next verse answers the question, taken is Jesus 
Christ to come to reward man according to his works?] 
14 Verily I say unto you there be some standing here which 
shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming 
in his kingdom." This is directly to the point. If none 
are now living, whom the Savior addressed, he has already 
come, in that sense, if he spoke the truth. James says, (ch. 
5. v. 7 and 8,) "Be patient therefore brethren, unto the 
coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for 
the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience foe 
it until he receive the early and the latter rain. Be ye 
also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the 

Lord DXAWETH NIGH." 

He means that the coming of the Lord was near at hand 



108 



DEB ATE ON 



at the time he ilrote. How as to the declaration of Paul 
that " there must be a falling away first?" Is there not 
some difficulty here? No. Because when he wrote, it 
Was not so near at hand, as some supposed 5 although the 
mystery of iniquity " had already begun to work," at that 
time. And what does John say? "Even now there are 
many antichrists, whereby We know that it is the last time" 
(1 John ii. 18.) And accordingly not a great while after- 
wards, Jesus Christ did make his appearance in the clouds 
of Heaven, in his kingdom, with power and great glory. 
John in Revelation, says, (and 1 believe it was written 
before the destruction of Jerusalem, from internal evi- 
dence;) "Behold he cometh, and every eye shall see him 
and they which pierced him, and all the kindreds of the earth 
shall wail because of him." The angel was to show John 
that which " should shortly come to pass;" the time was 
then " at hand." W as it to be put off for thousands of 
years? No: It was nigh "at hand;" though it was not 
so near, when Paul wrote. " Behold, I come quickly," is 
the language, in the last chapter of Revelation. We say 
that the coming in power and kingdom of the Lord Jesus 
Christ was in that "generation;" as Jesus Christ says in 
the 24th of Matthew-— referring to the judgment exercised 
by Jesus Christ, yet speaking not a word about the re- 
surrection. When he speaks of those who go "into ever- 
lasting fire," there is not a word said about the resurrection. 
Hence it is not proper to take those passages as referring 
to a future life. The passage in the immediate connection 
—"pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the 
Sabbath day"— proves that it does not refer to the resur- 
rection of the dead. 

This passage, (Matt. xxiv. 29,) is supposed by some to 
be literal, and to declare a real change of the heavens and 
the earth. I will explain this. It is like the 2d. chapter 
of Acts. I say it is figurative, as applicable to changes in 
goverments, empires, and rulers, civil and ecclesiastical. 
It does not refer to a literal dissolution of the heavens. 

Now for the proof of this position : Peter, addressing 
the Jews on the day of Pentecost, says, (Acts ii. 15,) "For 
these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the 
third hour of the day. But this is that [mark this] which 
was spoken by the prophet Joel: and it shall come to 
pass in the last days, saith God;" [this is spoken not of the 



UN I VERS A LI SM, 



209 



dissolution of the earth, but of the end of that dispensa- 
tion, and embraces a period of some extent of time;] ' I 
will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh : and your sons 
and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men 
shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams: 
and on my servants, and on my handmaidens, I will pour 
out in those days of my spirit ; and they shall prophesy: 
And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the 
earth beneath ; blood and fire, and vapor of smoke. The 
sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, 
before that great and notable day of the Lord come. 5 ' 
Peter says this which they then witnessed, was that which 
was spoken of by the prophet Joel. Joel used that lan- 
guage, and Peter interpreted it to apply to events then' 
actually passing before them. 

Now see Isaiah xxxiv., on this use of language by the 
prophets. Speaking of the desolation of Idumea, he says, 
(the passage itself shows that it does not refer to the liter- 
al dissolution of the heavens,) "And all the host of heaven 
shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together 
as a scroll: [this illustrates what is said by Peter in his 
Epistle;] "and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf 
falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig 
tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven; behold it 
shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my 
curse, to Judgment." 

All this language relates to the temporal desolation of 
idumea. 

I will now read the passage in Revelation vi. 12 : "And 
I beheld when he opened the sixth seal, and lo! there was 
a great earthquake : and the sun became black as sack- 
cloth of hair, and the moon became as blood : and the stars 
of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her 
untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And' 
the heaven departed as a scroll, when it is rolled together : 
and every mountain and island were moved out of their 
places. And the kings of the earth and the great men, 
and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty 
men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid them- 
selves in the dens and the rocks of the mountains; and* 
said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us 
from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from 
14 



210 



DEBATE ON 



the wrath of the Lamb : for the great day of his wrath & 
come; and who shall be able to stand?" 

All these passages, then, illustrate the use of this kind of 
language, as applied to moral and civil, or political and 
ecclesiastical changes upon the earth; they do not prove the 
literal dissolution of the material universe. 

Mr. Waller has said that Hell or Hades was a place for 
departed spirits, both good and bad; containing a depart- 
ment for each, i. e. Abraham's bosom, and Tartarus; and 
I have shown in the 20th of Revelation, that death and Hell 
were cast, into the lake of fire. Here is Hell containing 
Hell and Abraham's bosom cast into the lake of fire. Here 
we have more as to the lake of fire, as I will now show, in 
the 34th chapter of Isaiah. I will show that the lake of 
fire does not refer to the eternal state. Speaking of Idu- 
mea, the desolations of the land, and of the people dwell- 
ing upon it, (verse 9.) be says. "And the streams thereof 
shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brim- 
stone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. 
It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof 
shall go up forever," etc. 

Here is the same language applied to the desolations of 
Idumea which were temporary, and confined to this life. 
It was to become burning pitch, and the fire was not to be 
quenched; and " the smoke thereof was to go up forever/'' 
My friend said something about the term, "forever," and 
" forever and forever." Here I show the same words ap- 
plied to the temvoral desolation of the land of Idumea.- 
But perhaps he will say, what of this? He may say it 
meant the future state of eternal damnation in that case, 
after all. Let us see. Isaiah says, "the cormorant and 
the bittern shall possess it;" [do they possess the future 
Hell ?] " the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it;" [do 
they dwell in the spiritual Hell of fire?] "and thorns shall 
come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fort- 
resses thereof." [Do thorns grow in the palaces of Hell ? 
Do brambles and nettles grow in the fortresses of Hell I !) 

What then do I quote this passage for? To show the 
figurative use of that kind of language in Scripture. It all 
refers to things on earth, and in time. And so I might re- 
fer to all those passages containing the same language ;■ 
&at it is not necessary. I do not say that they all refer to* 
the same events, but similar ones. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



211 



I am talking now about the 24th chapter of Matthew; 
and the " tribulation" mentioned there, the dissolution of 
the heavens, etc., as contemporaneous with the coming of 
the Lord Jesus in power and glory, to establish his king- 
dom, 'and judge the world. The same coming is spoken 
of by him in Matt. xvi. 27 3 28; in both which chapler?,, 
Jesus Christ says it is to be within the life time of some 
^ho were then living. Why else should he say ye 
that are now living shall see " the signs and won- 
ders" preceding this event, if it is to happen in this very 
u generation" now living, or hereafter ? Why should he 
restrict it, as he did, to that time? It was then he told 
them, near, at the door. Those then living were to look 
For all this: "this generation shall not pass till all these 
things be accomplished." 

In the face of these declarations, my friend, alluding to 
these very signs and wonders, asks incredulously, " Have 
we seen any such things come to pass? " Who is correct? 
Is he, or Jesus Christ ? He must either say that Jesus 
Christ did not come, as he said he would come; or else, 
that the word of God is true, and he did come. But we 
are now told that it was not done; which is a flat, direct, 
positive contradiction of the very words of Jesus Christ! 
And the same remarks apply to all the other passages 
where this second coming is predicted; though in some of 
them, it was not so near at hand as the Thessalonians had 
supposed. I would believe that Jesus Christ did come in 
power and glory, when he said he would come, rather t ! han 
as in these latter days it is said, that he would come in 
1843. 

He spoke of Bishop Newton, and of " concessions"" made 
by him. Those concessions were not against his own sys- 
tem, though his system does not agree with mine. This 
is the difference between his concessions and those others 
which I quoted from Orthodox writers of celebrity — those 
from Whitby, Lightfoot, and others. In those cases, the 
admissions are directly against the system they held, and 
are therefore of importance. The cases are not in the 
least parallel. Mr, Waller has the privilege of bringing 
all the quotations he chooses from the great store-house of 
'Universalism, the Bible itself, as well as all the writings of 
all the great and good men who have believed in universal 
salvation, upon the question before us ; and I am willing-he 



212 



DEBATE ON 



should do so, that we may see how firmly they all write on 
the great doctrine of universal salvation. It is true, they 
differ in minor things; but the great point of the final de- 
liverance of all human souls, they taught, as the same is 
now taught by all Universalists. I have nothing more to 
notice at present, in relation to that point. 

I will now quote the 20th of Revelation, with a few re- 
marks: "And 1 saw a great white throne, and him that 
sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled 
away ; and there was found no place for them. And I saw 
the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books 
were opened ; and another book was opened, which is the 
book of life : and the dead were judged out of those things 
which were written in the books, according to their 
works." I wonder who the "dead, small and great," are? 
if we understand the language literally, and to refer to 
the future life. Does the language mean great sinners, 
and small sinners? or adults, and infant si But Mr. Wal- 
ler says that infants are not judged, because they can do 
nothing wrong, and nothing good. 

Mr. Waller. — I say nothing about infants. 

Mr. Pingree. — If they have no knowledge or will to do 
good or evil, they have in fact no character. But I will 
pass on. 44 And the sea gave up the dead which were in 
it ; and death and Hell delivered up the dead : and they 
were judged, every man, according to their works." That 
is the same Hell in which the rich man was; and thus the 
rich man is taken out of Hell. I urge it upon him, and 
upon you, that it takes the rich man out of Hell ; if Hades 
is properly Hell. "Death and Hell [Hades] delivered up 
the dead that were in them, and were cast into the lake of 
lire." Now was Abraham's bosom, [which was part of 
Hades, according to Mr. Waller,] with Abraham in it, cast 
into the lake of fire? I shall not enter into explanations 
now; I only want to show some of the absurdities which 
arise from the common interpretation : a Hell in a Hell is 
cast into a third Hell ; that is, into Tartarus, that is, into 
itself!! 

[mr. waller's ninth reply.] 
I deem it unnecessary, and shall not therefore attempt 
to follow Mr. Pingree in all the positions of his last speech. 
They are the same that have hitherto been discussed; and 



\ 



UNIVERSALISM. 



213 



to reply to them would but be to reiterate what has been 
again and again said. The gentleman has such a fondness 
for his arguments that nothing seems so much to delight 
him as to hear himself repeat them. Their utterance in 
his own melodious tones appears to fall with ravishing 
sweetness upon his ears. If necessary, the matter of the 
Judgment will be further attended to. 

He still misrepresents the views of the Baptists; but as 
I do not esteem them in great danger from his assaults, I 
will not now enter into their defence. If an opponent 
worthy of my steel, shall take the field against them, he 
may expect to hear from me. Until then i am not dispo- 
sed to leave the weightier matters in hand. 

Mr. Pingree is an opponent of no ordinary daring. He 
boldly confronts the Savior himself, and asserts a sin will 
be forgiven, although the Son of God declares it shall 
never be forgiven ! Perhaps I misunderstood him— -I hope 
I did. He seemed, however, to argue, that our Savior was 
mistaken in saying the sin against the Holy Ghost hath 
never forgiveness; for, in Mr. Pingree^ judgment, all 
sins are forgiven ! He felt that either Jesus or Univer- 
salism did not teach the truth on this subject; and he has 
left the former, and cleaved to the latter. Nor did he stop 
here. He boldly poured the waters on the everlasting 
fires, and declared them extinguished, although the Scrip- 
tures teach that they shall not be quenched ! Of course, 
I cannot stand before an opponent whose giant arm is too 
mighty for the omnipotence of divine truth ! If he will 
not regard the words of our blessed Savior, in vain may f 
hope that he will listen to my words. 

He did not positively affirm, but, with some trepidation 
of manner, seemed to insinuate that when ek was used in 
reference to the resurrection, that ail the dead were in- 
cluded. Admit this, and what follows 1 ? Why, that when 
Lazarus arose, all the dead arose with him! for he arose 
out of the dead. And when Jesus arose, all the dead rose 
again! for he too arose out of the dead. 

I have had no occasion to use Tom Paine's wit. The 
gentleman tries to excuse himself for drawing on him for 
some of his arguments, by alleging that Paine was a Par- 
tialist. Grant this, still this was not peculiar to his sys- 
tem — it was not original. But Mr. Pingree borrowed from 
his system and from what is peculiarly infidel in its origin- 



214 



DEBATE ON 



Paine was not an Atheist; and until Universalism arose? 
nothing but Atheism ever had the effrontery to deny a fu- 
ture state of rewards and punishments. Paine had too 
much common sense to embrace the absurdities of Atheism. 

Excuse me for once more referring to the 15th chapter 
of 1st Corinthians. It is the gentleman's main fortress; 
and although I have driven him from it, still he lingers 
about its ruins. I have said and proved that this chapter 
was written especially to comfort the righteous under their 
persecutions, by presenting to them the glorious estate in 
reserve for them at the resurrection. The whole connex- 
ion shows this. They all die in Adam and shall all rise in 
Christ. They have borne the image of the earthy, and 
shall bear the image of the heavenly. He is speaking of 
those who "are Christ's;" and not of those who are not 
Christ's, as Mr. Pingree does. Besides it is a. physical and 
not a moral change which the Apostle alludes to; and, 
therefore, is wholly inadequate to the wants of Universal- 
ism. Has Mr. Pingree met these positions which I have 
again and again pressed upon his consideration? He has 
not, and he cannot. And until he does, I deem it wholly 
unnecessary to notice his spasmodic efforts to evade them. 

I commenced the other day to show that this state of be- 
ing is not a perfect s'ate of retribution. I now return to 
that subject, and in persuing this course, I intend to bear 
down broadside upon all that Mr. Pingree has said. I care 
not to attack him in detail; I wish to crush his whole sys- 
tem in mass. I do this to save time and to spare your pa- 
tience. I will now proceed from where I left off. 

Fifth : The sufferings of the Son of God proves that tliere 
is not a perfect retribution in this life — that sin does not suf- 
ficiently and adequately punish itself 

Universalists must assert either that Jesus suffered just- 
ly for his own sins; and thus flatly contradict the Bible, 
which teaches that he was without sin and knew no sin, 
that guile was not found in his mouth; that he was holy, 
harmless, undefined, and separate from sinners, and made 
higher than the heavens: or else they must assert, that he 
died in the room and stead of sinners, bearing their sins 
in his own body upon the tree; and thus flatly contradict 
themselves; for they assert that each man's sins are borne 
by himself, and not by the Son ol God. 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



215 



If they take either horn of the dilemma, their cause 
fails. 

Sixth: Jems told his disciples that they were to be per- 
secuted in this world, not because of sin, hut because of 
righteousness. Now, unless my opponent can show that 
persecution for righteousness' sake is a just retribution, 
then this is not a perfect state of rewards and punish- 
ments. 

Matt. v. 10 — 12: "Blessed are they who are persecuted 
for righteousness'' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 
Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute 
you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, 
for my sake: rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is 
your reward in heaven-, for so persecuted they the pro- 
phets which were before you.''' Here it is asserted that 
good men for their righteousness shall be persecuted in 
this world : and this Universalism says is just and right : 
nay more, that this is all their reward, although our Sa- 
vior says, that their reward is in heaven ! 

Matt, xxiii. 29 — 35: " Woe unto you scribes and Phari- 
sees, hypocrites ! because ye build the tombs of the pro- 
phets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and 
say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would 
not have been partakers with them of the blood of the 
prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, 
that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye ser- 
pents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the 
damnation of Hell." This passage, I hope, will remove 
from Mr. Pingree's eyes all that film about God's punish- 
ment being fatherly and kind, and inflicted for the refor- 
mation of the sinner. 

I intend, in due time, to offer some remarks on the term 
Gehenna — " hell." Mr. Pingree's lucubrations on it. and 
on Lazarus, hades, Abraham's bosom, etc., must pass for 
the present. They will serve for his employment and 
our amusement. When the right time arrives, I expect 
conclusively to demonstrate that he is wholly ignorant of 
these subjects. But to proceed : 

Luke vi. 21 — 26: " Blessed are ye that hunger now; 
for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now; for 
ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, 
and when they shall separate you from their company, and 



216 



DEBATE ON 



sfhall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for 
the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap 
for joy, for in like manner did their fathers. Woe unto 
you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation ! 
Woe unto you that are full ! for ye shall hunger. Woe 
unto you that laugh now I for ye shall mourn and weep. 
Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you. n 
Now what can these passages mean, except to encourage- 
*.he saints under persecution in this world, in view of a 
glorious reward in the next; and to warn sinners who re- 
ceive their pleasure here, by the fearful retributions that 
await them hereafter? But they can in no way be con- 
strued to favor the doctrine, that the present is a state of 
perfect retribution. Indeed, the idea of all rewards and 
punishments being confined to this life, owes its origin to 
the brains of Universalists, like Fui-gatory, which is loca- 
ted in the cranium of the Pope. 

Acts vii. 57 — 60: "Then they cried with a loud voice, 
and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 
and cast him out of the city and stoned him : and the wit- 
nesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose 
name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon 
God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit. And h(* 
kneeled down and cried with a load voice, Lord, lay not 
this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he- 
fell asleep." 

Did Steplien, who was persecuted for the testimony of 
Jesus, thus receive his reward in this life? Universalis™ 
answers, yes ! 

Romans viii. 35 and 36: " Who shall separate us from 
the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or per- 
secution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword ? 
As it is written, For thy sake are we killed all the day 
long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." 

Thus are the righteous rewarded, according to Univer" 
salisml You must believe these persecutions to be bless- 
ings in this life, or else you must abandon the doctrine of 
my opponent ! Can you hesitate in your decision? 

1 Cor. iv. 11 — 13: "Even unto this present hour we 
both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffetted, 
and have no certain dwelling place; and labor, working 
with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being per- 
secuted, we suffer it;, being defamed, we entreat: we are 



UNIVERSALIS Mo 



217 



made as the filth of the world, and are the off-scouring of 
all things unto this day." Again, 1 Cor. xv. 19 — "If in 
this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men 
most miserable." Again, verses 31 and 32: " I protest by 
your rejoicing, I die daily. If after the manner of men, 
I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it 
me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink for to-mor- 
row we die. 1 ' This argument applies with equal force to 
Universalism. Why suffer for religion in this world, if 
we gain nothing by it in the world to come? Let us enjoy 
ourselves as do the ungodly. Let us eat and drink for to- 
morrow we shall all be happy. 

1 bring no charge of immorality against Universal ists. 
They may be all very moral, for ought I know; but then 
they are so in spite of their system; for I do charge that 
the tendency of their system is immoral. Now suppose a 
man should come here, and profess to be the advocate of 
industry, and yet contend that people could raise as much 
corn and make as much money by not working as with it : 
nevertheless, should urge the importance of industry from 
its advantages to health : think you, if he could convince 
people of this, every plough would not stop, and the sound 
of every hammer would not cease to be heard? Just so, 
Universalists take away the reward of righteousness here- 
after, and what then is left to nerve them to forego the 
pleasures of sin and endure persecution for the sake of 
righteousness? Sin is so sweet to the natural taste, and 
the cross of Christ such a burthen to men, that if you take 
away the punishment in the life to come, and hold out a 
blessed immortality to all, they will be sure to say, Let us 
eat and drink, for to-morrow we will all be in heaven ! 
Really, this is offering a premium to sin. 

2 Tim. iii. 11 and 12: "Persecutions and afflictions, 
which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium. at Lystra; 
what persecutions 1 endured : but out of them all the Lord 
delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ 
Jesus, shall svffer persecution." 

But shall the righteous justly suffer persecution? The 
Universalist responds in the affirmative : for in this life, 
according to his system, there is perfect retribution — 
men are punished exactly according to their deeds ! Of 
course there can be no injustice, or fraud, or wrong in this 
life, that is not fully and adequately punished ! Indeed, 



218 



DEBATE ON 



he that suffers from injustice receives but his due; for this 
is just the case of all the righteous: they unjustly suffer 
in this life for their religion, and this is their reward ! To 
say that these pious persons suffered justly for their sins 
is to contradict the Bible, for that declares that it was not 
for sin, but for righteousness. 

It appears too that the sufferings of the ancient Worthies 
were much more severe than the direst punishment inflict- 
ed upon the most abandoned in the Hell of the Universal- 
is ts. I will read from the u Pro and Con of Universalism: 1 ' 

"I have before considered the case of the gambler, but 
we may take a more difficult view of it. We will suppose, 
then, that he constantly rises from the game a winner; 
how, in that event, does he get his punishment? Is he not 
rather rewarded for his wickedness, and encouraged to 
proceed in it ? He would be encouraged, indeed, if he 
fared as well as you, reader, seem to suppose; and in that 
case why will we not all turn gamblers, since we are lured 
to it by the flowers which providence strews in that path ! 
Reader, dismiss this delusion; for such, and a very de- 
structive one, it really is. I will tell you how the success- 
ful gambler gets his punishment. It does not follow from 
the fact that he has always won, that he therefore always 
shall; one more expert than himself may at any moment 
strip him of all his past gains; his very successes serve to 
lessen his caution, and embolden him to venture larger 
stakes; hence, it often happens that his entire fortune is 
vibrating upon the chances of the moment; he may arise 
with double his present wealth, or without a penny. What 
must be his mental perturbation when so much is depend- 
ing on such shifting hazards ? Anxiety of this nature, so 
feverish, so intense, is rapid in its progress of eating out 
the soul. But aside from this, has he no reason for dis- 
quietude in regard to his victims, some of whom he may 
have rendered desperate by dispair at their losses, and may 
visit their ruin upon his head ? Let him who wishes to 
portray the career of the gambler as pleasant, go to a 
Parisian or a London hell, (rightly named,) to borrow his 
lights and shades for the picture. Would you, reader, ex- 
change your life of quiet and of honest self approval, for 
his, of turbulence and apprehension 1 

" Consider, next, the case of the dishonest man. Sup- 
pose him so adroit in his arts that he is never detected; is 



UNIVERSALIS!*!. 



219 



he therefore never punished ? Why then starts he at 
every leaf that rustles near him ? Why those uneasy 
glances when he hears approaching footsteps ? Why can- 
not he look his honest neighbors in the face, but his eye 
must be constantly cowering beneath their glance ?" etc., 
etc., pp. 247-8. 

And this is the Universalist's hell ! It may be, for ought 
I know, (for I pretend to no superior acquaintanceship 
with the feelings of such persons,) that some are very 
graphically discribed by this writer; but all history attests 
that there are many who have not those feelings and com- 
punctions of conscience. It is notorious that a majority 
of criminals go on in their wicked courses until they be- 
come " past feeling " and are perfectly reckless in theit 
career, and even take a pleasure in crime. Such, of 
course, are not in this hell ! It is your novice in guilt, 
upon the commission of some minor offence, who is start- 
led and abashed at the glance of the honest man's eye : 
but your veteran in vice will look an honest man out of 
countenance. He knows nothing of this hell. His con- 
science is seared as with a hot iron, and is as hard as the 
nether mill-stone. His eye never quails and his cheek 
never crimsons, with shame. Indeed there are some 
rogues so adroit in their business as to steal and rob ac- 
cording to law, and these are often esteemed the most re- 
spectable in community. These will coin the tears of 
wretchedness, and wring the last mite from the wasted hand 
of poverty, widowhood, and orphanage. They live in 
splendor upon their ungodly gains, and glory in their 
shame ! 

And the drunkard ! his punishment is future! While 
drunk, who so rich ? so glorious ? His floor is paved with 
diamonds, and he spits in gold dust ! Every thing smiles 
upon him, and every sound is the sweetest music to his 
ears ! Such a man is not in perdition surely ! Even the 
Universalists will not dare say so. I grant that when he 
begins to cool off, he then may be tormented. " Hobgob- 
lins and demons dire" may then float in his imagination. 
But he takes another dram or two, and he steps forth in 
his wanted magnificence again, the wisest, greatest, rich- 
est of mankind ! 

The truth is, sinners roll sin under their tongues as a 
sweet morsel. They take pleasure in unrighteousness. 

* 



220 



DEBATE ON 



So pleasant is sin to them, that in spite of all consequen- 
ces, they will engage in it: for its pleasures, they fear- 
lessly dare all its dangers. 

And if mental anguish be all the hell known to the 
Scriptures, then the Christians are often in it. Aye, even 
our blessed Savior said, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, 
even unto death;" and he sweat as it were great drops of 
blood, falling to the ground. And the Apostle had * great 
heaviness and continual sorrow of soul. 1 And what saint 
has not taken up the lamentation of the prophet, "Oh, 
that my head were waters and mine eyes a fountain of 
tears, that I might weep day and night over the slain of 
the daughter of my people?" or has not exclaimed with 
Paul, " Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me 
from the body of this death?" And where in history do 
we read of the sufferings of any, to be compared with 
those experienced by millions of the disciples of Christ, 
of whom the world was not worthy? Their sufferings 
were the most terrible upon record. And what did their 
persecutors suffer? In a majority of cases, they experi- 
enced neither corporeal nor mental pain. They thought 
they were doing God service; and were even stimulated 
by their consciences to butcher the disciples of Christ, 
supposing that the blood of the heretics (as they reproach- 
fully called them) would wash away their sins: and they 
would sing te deums and keep jubilee upon hearing that 
thousands of men, women, and children had been massa- 
cred in cold blood ! The hell of the Universalists is de- 
molished by such feelings as these. 

Seventh: We know, that in the commission of many sins, 
the sinner is wholly unconscious of any punishment — even be- 
lieves himself engaged in doing what is right and pleasing to 
God; and enjoys great peace of mind. 

Idolatry is a sin — the great sin; and yet how many 
idolaters, in their worship, experience great peace of mind? 
Nay, are startled if they neglect the worship of their 
idols? Sons, with a good conscience, have burned their own 
mothers upon the funeral pyre of their fathers ! Mothers 
have sacrificed their own infants ! etc. Now if peace of 
mind be the heaven, and mental anguish, the hell, of Uni- 
versalism, then the devotee of idolatry escapes the pun- 
ishment of sin, and enjoys that peace of mind which ac- 
cording to the system I am now opposing, is the reward of 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



221 



the righteous. This peace and joy of conscience, experi- 
enced by the idolater, is a full and adequate punishment 
for his sins ! — for this is a perfect state of retribution. 

Eighth : This doctrine makes God unjust and unequal in 
the administration of justice. I have already adduced 
proofs of this in the sufferings of the people of God in 
past ages. 

Look again at history. Behold the sufferings of the 
people of God ! — Hated of all men for his name's sake — - 
driven into the caves and the dens of the earth — hunted 
like beasts: burnt, crucified, sawn assunder — robbed of 
their property — torn from their families — driven from 
their country — denied the privilege of worshipping God : 
and all, not because of sin, but because of righteousness ! 
But Universalism says it is just ! With demon ferocity, 
it looks upon their sorrows and their sufferings, and de- 
clares it all to be right ! They are receiving their recom- 
pense ! This is all the advantage from religion they are 
ever to expect ! It stands near the stake, and "grinning 
horribly a ghastly smile," says to the suffering martyr, as 
he writhes in the cruel flame; this is the reward of your 
righteousness ! this is a just and righteous retribution ! 
In this world, sin and righteousness receive full and ade- 
quate reward ! You are suffering justly ! It is the mer- 
ciful visitation of the Lord ! 

This is foul blasphemy ! It is an atrocious slander upon 
the character of God ! 1 protest against this flagitious 
method of making the Almighty just such a being as our- 
selves ! It is Universalism, and not the Judge of all the 
earth, that is possessed of these most revolting and fiend- 
ish sentiments ! 

But turn another way, and contemplate the career of 
the enemies of the cross of Christ. If Christians have 
their evil things, these, like the rich man in the parable, 
very often enjoy their good things. Loved by the world — 
in possession of its honors and pleasures — living in luxu- 
ry and splendor — surrounded by their families and their 
friends — their favor courted, and their actions eulogized. 
Ease, comfort, opulence, and honor are their portions. 
Yet they are the enemies of God and his righteousness. 
They have persecuted his people and blasphemed his 
name. Universalism approaches such a one, and in bland 
and sweet, yet magniloquent strains, thus discourses : " Lo, 



222 



DEBATE ON 



you are in hell ! You are experiencing now everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory 
of his power ! You are burning in the fire which is un- 
quenchable ! and on you preys the worm that never dies ! 
This wealth, these honors, these friends, and all these plea- 
sures of yours are everlasting punishments ! — the agonies 
of the second death ! You are receiving in these the re- 
compense of your sins !!! But look yonder at those Chris- 
tians. Embrace their religion, and you will be rid of this 
hell, and enjoy their heaven ! They are receiving the 
reward of their righteousness. That flame in which they 
are burning is life everlasting ! Those dungeons in which 
they are confined, are the mansions which Jesus prepared 
in his Father's house for all that love him ! — they are 
rooms in that building not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens !! Those racks and tortures are all the manifes- 
tations of God's love they will receive for their faith in 
him ! and those crowns of thorns on their heads, are the 
crowns of glory their Savior promised them !!!" 

Such is the legitimate language of Universalism, which 
teaches that the wicked and the righteous receive the fruits 
of their doings only in this life ! Infidelity itself, never 
uttered such unhallowed slanders against the Almighty ! 

I shall now proceed to show, that there is punishment 
for sin and reward for righteousness, in the future state. 
Under this proposition, I do not intend to argue the dura- 
tion of future punishments : I only propose to show that 
sinners are punished after death. The other matter will 
be attended to afterwards. If the gentleman is truly a 
Universalist, should I establish this position, his doctrine 
falls. He has not clearly defined his position as yet — he 
will definitely take neither Universalist nor Restorationist 
grounds. He still dangles, professedly, in mid air. I have 
no objection to his course, and utter no complaints. He is 
welcome to elect whatever position he esteems the most 
comfortable. I wage a war of extermination against the 
whole system, from Restorationism down to the lowest 
depths of Universalism. 

First : That there is a future state of rewards and pun- 
ishments, I argue, because, in this world, there is not a per- 
fect retribution. This I have already shown. Every man 
of common observation and common sense knows and feels 
it. It follows then, that if the judge of all the earth will 



UNIVERSALIS!*!*. 



223 



do right, he will punish in another world— that he will 
there do justice, which is another word for doing right. In 
that world 5 the sinner and the saint shall reap the fruits of 
their doings. The oppressor and the oppressed, will give 
an account unto God. The sinner who enjoyed his good 
things in this, will be tormented in that, world; while he 
who had his evil things here, and was poor and persecuted 
on account of his religion, will there ' bathe his weary 
soul in seas of heavenly rest.' 5 The blood stained con- 
queror who could not obtain justice in this world, will re- 
ceive it there : and over all men, however false and wrong 
their position here, the eternal and immutable justice of 
God will there forever manifest itself. 

Second : If, as Universalists affirm, every sin of each in- 
dividual is as certainly punished as that God sits upon his 
throne, then there must he punishment after death. Men die 
in their sins. " The wicked are turned into hell [let it be 
hades, the unseen world, if you please] with all the na- 
tions that forget God." " The wicked is driven away in 
his wickedness." Some die Atheists, some Deists; drunk- 
ards, swearers, idolaters; some in the act of murder or of 
robbery, with the blood of the innocent upon their souls. 
Nor will it do to say that their death was their punishment. 
Death is the common lot of the pious as well as the ungod- 
ly. Besides, on the same ship, the humble disciple of 
Christ, the bold blasphemer, the drunkard, etc., etc., have, 
in an instant, gone down into the same watery grave ! The 
same tornado, while all were asleep, has swept the saint 
and the sinner into eternity. It is clear then that sinners 
die in their sins — 'enter the other world polluted with guilt, 
and with their sins unpunished. Ballou himself admits 
this. In his 66 Treatise on Atonement," he says : " It is 
objected, as many are going out of this world daily, in a 
state of sinfulness and unreconciliation to God, and there 
being no alteration in the soul, for the better, after it 
leaves this natural life, millions, must be miserable, as 
long as God exists. The force of this objection stands on 
the supposition, that there is no alteration for the better, 
after death. Could this supposition be proved, I grant it 
would substantiate a formidable, and (I think) an unan- 
swerable objection against the final holiness and happiness 
of all men." p. 151. 

There are sinners, then, who, dying in their sins, are 



224 



DEBATE ON 



not punished for them in this life : of course they must be 
punished for them in the life to come : for Universalism 
asserts that every sin will meet full and adequate punish- 
ment. Again : " it asserts that the evils from which Jesus 
came to save men are in this world;" and as those dying 
in their sins, were not saved from these evils in this world, 
it follows that they are not saved from them by the Savior 
at all; for, we are told, that he saves only in this world ! 
And if not saved by him, they are never saved at all, for 
he is the only Savior ! They go into the grave with their 
sins, we are told; and also that God punishes fully and ade- 
quately every transgression and sin : the conclusion is ine- 
vitable then, that these persons are punished after death, 
the Universalists being witnesses. 

Third : Universalis?)!, in asserting that no man can be 
happy hereafter, unless holy, in effect asserts a future state 
of punishment. 

The mind of the Christian is made holy in this world. 
The first coming of Christ was for the salvation of the 
soul : he will come a second time to save the body. Hence 
all his doctrine pertained to the soul — had to do with the 
mind. He told his disciples not to fear them that kill the 
body — to take no care of the body. They were to suffer 
in the body. But the mind was to be converted — changed 
— to be born again — born from above. We are to believe 
in him, and by so doing, receive forgiveness of sins — are 
pardoned, justified and saved. Our hearts are purified by 
faith. By it, we pass from death unto life, become heirs 
of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. In this way, 
the mind is made holy — is conformed to the law of God. 
Hence says Paul, Romans i. 25, " With the mind [nous — 
" The rational soul, with all its powers, faculties and af- 
fections."*] I myself serve the law of God, but with the 
flesh [sarx — "the human body,"] the law of sin." Chris- 
tians are "new creatures." This renovation of their 
minds — of their moral being, takes place this side of the 
grave. It is effected through the truth by the Spirit of 
God operating on the minds of men. But the sinner, dy- 
ing in his sins, has no such change wrought in him in this 
world. The Atheist, the Deist, the drunkard, the liar, the 
wicked of every degree, dying impenitent, have experien- 



■Greenfield's Lexicon. 



T7NIYERSALISH. 



226 



no such change in life. This Mr. Ballou admits; and 
confesses, that unless they experience it after death they 
must ever be miserable, They have not the principle of 
holiness within them, and they cannot be happy in the fu- 
ture state without it. Where do they obtain this renova- 
tion of mind out of this world ? Is the grave the soul's 
crucible? Are the enamel house, the coffin, the winding 
sheet, the skin worms; the rottenness and stench of the 
grave— are these the refiner's fire, and the fuller's soap to 
cleanse those souls which, in life, defied the purifying in- 
fluences of the grace, and the truth, and the spirit of God ? 
Are these more effectual in administering to the mind des- 
eased, than the potent medicines in the pharmacopoeia of 
the great Physican of souls. 

And how, Oh tell me, how is the soul converted and re- 
generated in the next state ? Is it done without means ? 
If not, what means are employed ? Has God provided 
other means there than he has appointed for this world 1 
If so, what are they ? If the same* are the hearts of men 
more impressible there than here 1 Is the sword of the 
Spirit, the word of God, wielded for their conversion, in 
the next world ? Have they faith ? If not, how are they 
pardoned, or justified, or saved 1 How are their hearts 
purified ? And if they have faith, do they obtain it with- 
out hearing? and do they hear without a preacher? and 
who is commissioned to preach the Gospel in the grave ? 

Or will it be contended, that the Almighty treats there 
the minds he has created as mere clods of matter, and 
changes them to holiness without presentation of motive ? 
To allege that God makes men holy without means, and 
without the presentation of motive, is to deny all moral 
agency to man; and by so doing to obliterate all the dis- 
tinction between vice and virtue. Destroy the freedom of 
the will, and man is powerless to do. If he has no will to 
do, then he does nothing, and can do nothing; and is no 
more accountable than a steam engine, or the wheel of a 
cart. If he has no freedom of will, he can render no ser- 
vice to God, and can commit no sin against him, any more 
than a turtle or a terrapin. And of course it follows, that 
all which has been said, and sung, and written about virtue 
and vice is shere nonsense; for no man can be virtuous or 
vicious, upon this principle; and right and wrong are 
terms that have no rightful place in the vocabulary of men! 
15 



DEBATE If 



And who would think of calling on a stock or a stone 
to serve him? But God so calls upon man. He does de- 
mand service of him. This proves that the Almighty re- 
gards him as a moral agent, that may or may not serve him 
as he lists. He reasons with men to convince their judg- 
ments, and presents them motives to win their affections. 
It is thus, in this world, they are brought from the love of 
sin, to the love of holiness. Will the Universalist tell us 
how such a transformation is brought about in the next 
world! He admits the necessity and assorts its existence ; 
the burthen of proof then rests upon him. Is the Atheist 
there brought to admit the existence of God, and his soul 
made to love him, without one reason being offered to 
change his opinion, and without one motive being present- 
ed to win his affections? Is the Deist, in the same way, 
brought to love and worship Jesus? The man who could 
not be won here by the Gospel of the Grace of God, pre- 
sented to him in the sweet accents of love, is he there, by 
arbitrary power, made holy and righteous? changed with- 
out his knowledge or consent, without a reason or a mo- 
tive, he knows not how or where I 

Fouth. The sins of the sinner do not cease with this 

LIFE, AND IF EVERY SIN MEETS ADEQUATE PUNISHMENT, THEN 
THERE MUST BE PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH. 

I have already established this point in my remarks up- 
on the judgment. Holy men of old, though dead, yet 
speak. They have ceased from their labors, and their 
works do follow them. The ancient law givers still act 
through the laws they made. Great conquerors, dead a 
thousand years, yet live in the desolations, moral and 
physical, which they wrought. And who can read the 
writings of the illustrious dead, and not feel their influ- 
ence upon their minds? And who will say that the Infi- 
dels of the last century have ceased to act? Are they 
not still persuading men to reject and contemn the religion 
of Jesus? Every man is a part of society-— a constituent 
portion of a mighly moral machinery. Sin is an injury 
done to the law of God — an invasion and infraction of the 
moral system, ordained of God for the good of all his in- 
telligent creatures; and if every sin is certainly punched, 
where do these posthumous sins receive their punishment 
but in the life to come. 

Fifth. Universalism in denying future punishment not only 



UNIVERSALISM. 



227 



makes our Savior an unreasonable master, but his Disciples 
the veriest Quixotic adventurers that ever tabernacled in flesh. 

The Savior commanded his Apostles to go and make dis- 
ciples of all nations. Now imagine these Apostles going 
forth, and preaching Universalism to the men of the earth. 
They find a man surrounded by all the good things of this 
life. He is clothed in purple and fine linen, and fares 
sumptuously every day. He has friends and relations, 
whose company impart to him pleasure and delight. Pie 
has houses, and lands, and servants, and stores, and cattle. 
He has said to his soul, take now thine easel An Apos- 
tle approaches him, and promises him great earthly re- 
wards if he will embrace the Christian religion, (for re- 
member, Universalism promises only this life to the 
Christian— only temporal rewards.) The man, in admira- 
tion, demands in what can it consist? Do you promise 
more wealth, more houses and lands? No sir; our Mas- 
ter says you must be willing to forsake these for his sake; 
and very likely your enemies will strip you of all your 
possessions. Well, then, I will have more friends, I sup- 
pose? No: You will be hated of all men for his name's 
sake. But then I will have the more pleasure with my fam- 
ily? No: A man's foes are frequently those of his own 
household; but besides, you must be willing to forsake all 
these, or you will not be worthy to be called his disciple. 
Well, surely then I shall be respected and honored by 
some body? Oh no, sir! you will be hated and persecut- 
ed, and be driven from city to city, and in all probability, 
be miserably put to death. Well, sir, you must be talking 
about another world; for surely 1 do not see how it is I 
can gain anything in this, by your religion? Yes sir, it 
is in this; for in the next world you gain nothing what- 
ever by being a disciple of our Master! 

If the man did not spurn them for fools or maniacs, he 
must have possessed more patience than Job, and more in- 
senbility than a Stoic. 

In making the rewards of our religion entirely in this 
life, an essential feature of all false religions, and es- 
pecially that of Mahomet, is fastened upon it. And who 
would be justifiable in giving up houses, and lands, and 
wife and children, and his own life, for such a religion? 
Certainly none would do it, and I am sure none ought to 
do it. Perhaps this will explain the reason why none o r 



228 



DEBATE Off 



the great company of martyrs were Universalists. I de- 
mand of Mr. Pingree to show how, on the principles of 
his system, he can demand of any man to sacrifice an 
earthly pleasure, not to say his life, for religion? Will he 
answer? 

Sixth. But we will let the New Testament speak in relation 
to a state of future rewards and punishments, And I re- 
gret that our time is so limited, as to enable me merely to 
glance at this important point; to quote but a few of the 
vast multitude of passages bearing directly on this sub- 
ject. 

Matt. iii. 12: " Whose fan is in his hand, and he w$I 
thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his 
garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquencha- 
ble fire." That is, as the Universalist would explain, 
he will burn the chaff until it becomes wheat, and then 
the unquenchable fire will go out. Matt. v. 3: " Blessed 
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heav- 
en." And Universalism adds, Blessed are those not poor 
in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven! Verse 7; 
-•Blessed is the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;" 
And so shall the unmerciful 1 responds Universalism. 
Verse 8; "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall 
see God." Universalism says, so shall the impure in 
heart! Verse 9; "Blessed are the peace-makers, for 
they shall he called the children of God. Universalism; 
And blessed are the yeace-breakers, for they shall be call- 
ed the children of God! Verse 10; " Blessed are they 
who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is 
the kingdom of Heaven." Universalism; And blessed 
are they who persecute the righteous, for theirs is Heav- 
en!! Verses 11 and 12: "Blessed are ye when men 
shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all 
manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake; rejoice 
and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heav- 
en." Universalism; This is a blunder of " the dependent 
creature," Jesus of Nazareth! He should have said, 
great is your reward in the earth! In Heaven, these per- 
secuted persons will have no more reward than their per- 
secutors! Verse 20; "Except your righteousness shall 
exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye 
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven." Uni- 
versalism; But whether you shall have any righteous- 



UNIVERSA L ISM . 



229 



ness at all, ye shall in every case, enter into Heaven! 
Verse 22; "Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall 
be in danger of the judgment. [Universaiism; that is, of 
being punished by the Gourt of Septemviri, although 
there is no law for that Court's condemning you for such 
an offence;] and whosoever shall say to his brother, Baca, 
shall be in danger of the council; [Universaiism; and yet 
the council have no jurisdiction in such cases;] but who- 
soever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire. 
[Universaiism; that is, to be burnt in the valley of Hin- 
nom, for which there is no law, human or divine'."] Verse 
29; " If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it 
from thee, for it is profitable for thee that one of thy 
members should perish, and not that thy whole body 
should be cast into Hell." [Universaiism; that is, into 
the valley of Hinnom, where there is not the least danger 
©f your being cast!!] Verse 30; "If thy right hand of- 
fend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee, for it is profitable 
for thee that one of thy members should perish, and 
not that thy whole body should be cast into Hell." [Uni- 
versaiism; into the valley of Hinnom; where you never 
will be cast, as you very well know!] 

Matt. vi. 2: "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, 
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; [Univers- 
aiism; yet they shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven;] 
but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in Heaven, 
[Universaiism; and he that doeth it not.] Many will say 
unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied 
in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and 
in thy name done many wonderful works? and then will I 
profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me ye 
that work iniquity." [Universaiism; and go into Heaven!] 

Matt. viii. 11, 12: " And I say unto you, that many shall 
come from the East and West, and shall sit down with 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven; 
but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into 
outer darkness; [Universaiism; and into the light and glo- 
ry of Heaven;] there shall be weeping and gnashing 
of teeth." 

Matt. x. 15: "It shall be more tolerable for the land 
of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for 
that city." [Universaiism; for their inhabitants shall min- 
gle together in the climes of bliss!] 



230 



DEBATE ON 



Matt. x. 28: " And fear not them which kill the body? 
but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who 
is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell." Luke xii. 
4, 5: " And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of 
them that kill the body, and after that have no more that 
they can do; but I will forewarn youjwhom you shall fear. 
Fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast 
into Hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 

The Universalists have agonized much over these 
texts, and have made many spasmodic efforts to deliver 
themselves of their burden; but hitherto, they have labor- 
ed to little purpose. Scarcely any two of them go the 
same way around them; and no one, so far as I have ob- 
served, seems satisfied with his efforts. Now, why should 
dead men fear, if there be no terrors hereafter? And 
what means that awful warning to fear him who was able 
to do, what man could not do, viz: " Destroy both soul and 
body in Hell," — in Gehenna. "Who, after he hath kill- 
ed, hath power to cast into Hell." A Universalist writer, 
in the frenzy of his despair, tells us that the text says, 
that God has power to cast into Hell, not that he will do 
it! If there is no Hell, I humbly conceive that even Om- 
nipotence could not cast any one into it! But another, 
still more frantic, tells us, that it means that the disciples 
should not fear the Jews who. could kill the body, but that 
they should fear the Romans, who would cast both body 
and life into Hinnom's vale! But how the life of a dead 
man could be cast into the valley of Hinnom, he did not 
explain; nor did he tell us why the Romans should be 
particularly dreaded, because they had power to cast 
dead bodies into the valley of Hinnom, (which could 
not have been a very great affair.) Perhaps Mr. Pin- 
gree has still another explanation. I will await his ad- 
vance. 

Matt, x.33: " Whosever shall deny me, before men him 
will I also deny before my Father and the holy angels;" 
[Universal ism; but he shall nevertheless, be made at that 
time, holy and happy!] 

Matt. x. 37 — 39: " He that loveth father and mother more 
than me is not worthy of me, [Universalism; but is worthy 
of Heaven!] and he that loveth son or daughter more than 
me, is not worthy of me. [Universalism; but nevertheless 
is worthy of Heaven!] And he that taketh not his cross 



KJN IV Eft:S A5LI S.M.. 231 

and followet'h after me, is not worthy of me, [Universal- 
ism; but shall be forever happy 1] He that findeth his life 
shall lose it, [Universalism; and find it again in Heaven!] 
.and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it again." 
[Universalism; in this world!!] 

Matt. xi. 28: " Come unto me all ye that labor and 
are heavy laden,, and I will give you rest..'" Universalism; 
in this world, in the shape of bonds and imprisonments, 
and stripes and fire, and crucifixion; and if you do not 
choose to come unto me, you shall rest in Heaven any 
how!!] 

Matt. xiii. 37—43: " He that soweth good seed is the 
son of man. The field is the world. [U&iversalism; 
Judeaf] The good seed are the children of the kingdom; 
but the tares are the children of the wicked one. [Uni- 
versalism; that is, the Jews.] The enemy that sowed 
them [Universalism; the Jews,] is the devil.; the harvest 
is the end of the world, [Universalism; the destruction of 
Jerusalem,] and the reapers are the angels. [Universlism ; 
the Roman ^soldiers!] As therefore the tares are gather- 
ed and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of the 
world. [Universalism; some thirty-six years hence!] The 
Son of man shall send forth his angels, [Universalism; 
idolatrous soldiers!] and they shall gather out of his 
kingdom all things that offend, and them which do in- 
iquity, [Universalism; a piece of service which the Roman 
angels, alias soldiers, neglected to perform!] and shall 
cast them in a furnace of fire; [Universalism; the valley 
of Hinnom, this also was forgotten!] there shall be wail- 
ing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous 
shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father."" 
[Universalism; that is, they shall dwell in the town of 
Pella, and be hated of all men, and be persecuted for 
righteousness' sake!] 

I hope Mr, Pingree will not esteem me impertinent if I 
nsk him a few questions. Did not the Jewish state end 
when that of the Christian commenced? Did not the 
Christian age commence before the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem? Does not " the end of the world" then, mean the 
end of the Christian age? Let him answer. 

Matt. xiii. 49, 50: " So shall it be at the end of the 
world, [Universalism; at the destruction of Jerusalem!] 
the angels [Universalism; Pagan soldiers.!] shall come 



DEBATE ON 



forth and sever the wicked from among the just, [Univer- 
salism; which the Roman soldiers forgot to do, a proof 
that Jesus was mistaken in their character!] and cast them 
into the furnace of fire, [Universalism; into the valley of 
Hinnom, where there was no fire !] there shall be wailing 
and gnashing of teeth." [Universalism; by the lifeless 
corpses!!!] 

[mk. pingree's tenth speech.] 
Respected Friends: — According to the course of Mr* 
Waller's last speech, yesterday, I shall make a slight 
change in my course this morning. Instead of coming up 
and making an argument on the subject of the coming of 
Christ, and other matters before introduced by him, and 
replied to by me, he gave new matter, and occupied him- 
self with reading from old prepared manuscript sermons? 
apparently, in which he discusses various questions with 
Father Ballou, instead of meeting the present arguments 
of Mr. Pingree. 

I might save trouble, and abbreviate labor, by taking the 
writings of Mr. Ballou, and reading them-, to form a perfect 
reply to the arguments of Mr. Waller; though in that case, 
as the discussion on the part of Mr. Waller seems to be 
with Mr. Ballou, I would rather he should be here to de- 
fend himself, in person. But as I have not brought his 
works here, I must reply myself. 

As an example or two of his various readings of Scrip- 
ture, according to his notions of Universalism, take the 5th 
chapter of Matthew. I shall not notice alt, but take one or 
two, to illustrate the principle; for I have not time for 
more. For "Blessed are the peace-makers ;" he reads, 
blessed are the peace, breakers, as the Universalist reading- 
This I say is not correct. It is not true. Positively, it is 
not true; that is, in the sense in which the impression is at- 
tempted to be made, that the peace-breakers are blessed 
like the righteous — that they receive the same blessing of 
God as the peace-makers, and as such. I have never at- 
tempted, have I? to show that they go to heaven in their 
3ins. Not once through this discussion! Has any minis- 
ter ever preached it, any where? Never! The whole of 
this pretended argument then goes for nothing. We say 
that peace-breakers will be changed, and become peace- 
makers, and then in heaven, finally, all shall be blessed 



UNI VERBALISM 



233 



together. Is there any objection to this on the part of the 
gentleman? My friend believes that some bad men will be 
saved: not go to heaven in their wickedness, but by being 
changed. Where is the difference then between us? He 
says, some will be saved. I say all will be saved, from, and 
not in their sins. Besides, what is s< the kingdom of God?" 
My friend knows that the kingdom of God, as spoken of 
in the New Testament, does not always, if ever, refer to 
the immortal state; but. to the Gospel kingdom on earth. 
Hence he depends on your common understanding of these 
passages, to apply them as he wishes. The Savior, speak- 
ing of this kingdom, says, " Neither shall they say,Lo here, 
or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." 
(Luke xvii. 20.) It is established in men's hearts, and only 
seen in the Christian's life and conduct. To have a Chris- 
tian spirit, is to enjoy the kingdom of heaven. So also 
Paul : " The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; bat 
righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." So that 
the very passages he brought for proof of the misery of 
the righteous, show the very reverse. They show that 
those men enjoyed the kingdom of God. They show them 
to have been happy and at peace. True, they were per- 
secuted in the flesh: yet they rejoiced in those persecu- 
tions, because they had hope in the Gospel of immortal 
joy. Even though oppressed, they were happier than 
their oppressors. While the former enjoyed peace and 
joy of the Gospel, the latter had u no peace; but were 
like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest." Thus teaches 
a holy Penman. 

I propose now to give some various readings of Scrip- 
ture, to follow the example of my friend Mr. Waller. If 
his are correct, — as they are net, — mine are correct. If 
not. these will set them aside; so I propose to give them, 

When God promises Abraham that "in his seed all the 
nations of the earth shall be blessed," the Orthodox say 
only some of the nations shall be blessed in him. Peter 
says, " God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to 
bless you, in turning away every one of you from his ini- 
quities," (Acts iii. 26.) The Orthodox say, ''turning 
away some of you from his iniquities." 

Another case: God is "reconciling the world to him- 
self, by Jesus Christ." The Arminian says he will try to 
do it, but can not. The Calvinist says he will try to recon-* 



234 



DEBATE ON 



cile a part of the world, and will accomplish it. See the 
difference between Orthodoxy, in its two parts, and Bible 
Universalism. 

The Bible says, " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, 
shall all be made alive." Orthodoxy says, as in Adam 
all Christians die, so in the resurrection shall all Christians 
be made alive. This is the difference between Orthodoxy 
and the Bible. The Bible says, that all shall be subject 
to Christ ; and God become " all in all," Orthodoxy says, 
some shall be subject to Christ; and others remain in rebel- 
lion forever and ever. 

The will of God is in favor of universal salvation; for 
he " will have all men to be saved," etc. The Calvinist 
says, God wills only that some shall be saved : and that 
others were made to be damned. This is old fashioned 
Calvinism. The Arminian says that God would like to 
save all men, but will fail everlastingly to do it. There 
again is a plain and clear distinction between Orthodoxy 
and the Bible. 

Though Paul says, God will gather together all things 
in Christ; Orthodoxy separates a pari, and says only some 
shall be gathered unto him, and that all the rest shall be 
excluded for ever! Paul, in the 11th of Romans says, 
" Of whom, [i. e. God,] and through whom, and to whom 
are all things." Orthodoxy says, of whom and to whom 
are a part—^-some only, 

Upon the subject of the destruction of the enemies of 
man — death, sin, Hell, or the grave, and the Devil; though 
the Bible says that every, even the "last enemy" of man is 
to be destroyed; yet Orthodoxy denies this; names an ene- 
my after "the last," more dreadful than they all, which 
is God! There again is the difference between Orthodoxy 
and the Bible. 

So Jesus Christ says, " If I be lifted up I will draw all 
men unto me." Orthodoxy says that Christ will draw only 
a part unto him. To prove that all will come to him, Jesus 
Christ said, "All that the Father hath given to me — and 
he hath given all — shall come to me; and him that com- 
eth to me, I will in no wise cast out." Orthodoxy says, 
that some will come to Jesus, and others will wail in ever- 
lasting despair! 

Peter, in Acts iii. says there will be a "restitution of all 
things, as spoken of by the holy prophets." Orthodoxy 



UNIVERSALIS*?. 



235 



says there will be a restitution of some things, but not of 
all. Here is the difference again between Peter and the 
Orthodoxy. 

Thus you see that " various readings" can be given on 
both sides. Whenever the true exposition of the Bible is 
given, it does not bear against us. If Mr. Waller shows 
that these do not bear against his theory, he will do well — 
better than I expect. I have shown that in his " various 
readings," he has grossly perverted our sentiments. 

I now proceed to advance one more distinct argument in 
favor of universal salvation. I thought I had presented 
all that I should, in this discussion; but Mr. Waller's say- 
ing that I have given all that can be given, on the side 
which I advocate, has induced me to add more; that the 
vanity of his boasting may be seen by all, 

Jesus Christ commands us to " love our enemies." We 
are required to love our neighbor as ourselves. Paul says,, 
that "when one member suffers, all suffer with it. 11 Here 
we are bound in sympathy with each other, to such an 
extent, that one cannot witness even slight suffering in 
another, without suffering with him. Suppose we go to a 
future world, and there is no change in our moral natures 
after death. What is the consequence, supposing the the- 
ory of endless torture in Hell to be true? Those who go 
to heaven, when they look across the gulf, what will they 
behold? The torments of human beings writhing in Hell; 
and they will hear the groans, and screams, and yells of 
agony of the damned, to all eternity!! Will not sights 
and sounds like these make them miserable, even though 
they sit around the throne of God? If they are not chang- 
ed after death, it follows inevitably that this will be the 
case. Because the best men are afflicted by the misfor- 
tunes of others in this world. Mr. Waller is troubled by 
the sufferings of his fellow men, now. He is doubtless 
often made unhappy by them. Even though he does not 
sin himself, he feels for the sufferings of others. If he is 
not changed after death; if he goes to heaven; and there 
knows and sees that his friends are suffering unspeakable 
misery to all eternity in Hell, I think that even with those 
high and holy feelings which belong to heaven, he must 
be miserable with them to all eternity, by the power of 
sympathy. Hence, the happiness of the saved requires 
the happiness of all, to make it complete, 



236 



DEBATE ON 



I will now go back, and notice the last speech of Mr. 
Waller, yesterday afternoon. My friend says he is wil- 
ling to go into a defence of the Baptists on the subject of 
their disagreements with other sects, etc. I do not ask 
him to do that. This is the point : unless they undergo a 
great moral change after death, they cannot live in fellow- 
ship in a future life. The common doctrine is, he that 
believes and is baptized here, shall be saved hereafter. He 
that does not, shall be damned. Now look at the common 
idea introduced; it is that he who believes and is immersed, 
only he who is immersed, shall be saved; and he that is 
not immersed must be damned hereafter inevitably. Hence, 
I repeat, the Baptists unchurch and damn all Christendom! 
I shall not now dispule the correctness of this dogma, and 
of the course pursued under its influence: I only mention 
it to show the absolute necessity of a change of disposition 
after death, and the consequences of no change, things ex- 
isting as they do. 

He argues from the Greek word ek, that when Lazarus 
rose, all mankind rose with him. If the word ek has that 
power, it has great power, for a small word. A less matter 
avails in this passage, with Mr. Waller, than was required 
by Rev. Mr. Ely, in his discussion with Rev. A. C. Thomas. 
The phrase, " they shall be accounted worthy," kept him 
from being a Universalist; while the little Greek particle, 
ek, keeps Mr. Waller from it. The word ek is a small 
matter — a small gate through which to send the great 
mass of the human family into Hell. They must all go 
through that little Greek particle ek, into Hell! I shall 
say nothing more of this, at present; but leave you to de- 
cide whether his argument is a sound one. 

We have an argument that this life is not a state of per- 
fect retribution. We hear the inquiry made whether the 
sufferings of Jesus Christ were for himself, or in the stead 
of others; and I am required to take one of the horns of the 
dilemma. I shall take neither. He neither suffered for 
his own sins, nor in the stead and place of others. He 
suffered for the benefit of others. He was a kind and benev- 
olent being, and suffered for the benefit of the world; as 
he was sent to suffer, by the Father, to give himself a ran- 
som for all; and so says the Bible. I suppose my friend 
is an Arminian, and believes that the death of Christ aton- 
ed for the sins of the world, and that he died instead of all 



UNIVERSALIS!*!. 



257 



men. What! Is not the appointed punishment of sin, end- 
less damnation? and did Christ suffer endless damnation for 
every single sin that ever was or ever will be committed 
by every single sinner of the human race? He did, if his 
sufferings were vicarious. He endured in his own person 
ten thousand millions of endless damnations! Admit then 
that he thus died, and was punished in the room and stead 
of all; is any human being to suffer after Jesus Christ has 
suffered in his stead? Then God inflicts double damna- 
tion for every sin that is committed!! This is the neces- 
sary consequence of vicarious atonement, unless all are 
finally saved. 

Suppose a court of justice should do so; would not all 
men reprobate its conduct as cruel, unjust, and malignant? 
A man is condemned to be hung : a substitute appears, and 
the court consents to take him and hang him in the stead 
or place of the criminal. The executioner hangs the sub- 
stitute, and then the court orders him to hang the criminal 
too! Would not such a court and executioner be driven 
out of civilized society, with universal execration? 

Just so here: Jesus Christ comes to offer himself as a 
substitute for sinners who have been condemned to endless 
and hopeless damnation. He suffers all the endless dam- 
nation of each of these sinners in his own person. Yet 
now some sinners are to be endlessly damned, the same as 
if their punishment had not been already paid in full! 
Who can believe that in the government of God there ex- 
ists such monstrous injustice as that? 

Jesus Christ came to " reconcile the world to God-" not 
God to the world: and this is just the difference between 
Scripture and Orthodoxy, in reference to the nature and 
object of the Atonement. 

Next, as to the sufferings of the Apostles: did they care 
for the hatred of their enemies? No: they endured the 
sufferings willingly, for the reward of righteousness, and 
peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. None of these could 
be taken away. They endured suffering for this: no: 
for their own sins : it is not spoken of as a punishment — 
it was apart of the Savior's sufferings; that is, in kind. 
If Jesus Christ's sufferings were vicarious, the Apostles' 
were the same; for an Apostle speaks of" being & partaker 
of Christ's sufferings." 

Mr. Waller was "amused" by my remarks upon the 



238 



DEBATE ON 



subject of Hell. He would not declare himself on 
that subject; but let me go on for his amusement! Is 
that what he come here for? to procure you and him- 
self "amusement" upon such topics as that? Hell, and the 
torments of doomed souls! Was that the object of our 
meeting? is that the thing we came here to do? Not 
fully. If so, we know what to talk about. The fact 
is, if I have raised a fog about the subject, it is lime he 
should begin to make it clear. I call on him to take 
hold of it, to declare himself; and we shall not be in a 
mist or fog, or be talking for your amusement. I perfer 
not to spend time iu that way myself. I have something 
to do, besides "amusing''' 1 Mr. Waller and the audience. 

I must here comment upon the evil and immoral ten- 
dency of preaching, as my friend does, the unhappiness 
of the righteous, and the happiness of the unright- 
eous; and also of sinning in the flesh, and at the same 
time being holy in mind. It is Antinomianism which 
does this. I am opposed to such preaching; the happi- 
ness of the drunkard, etc., and the wretchedness of the 
righteous. Suppose such doctrines were received 
generally — mea would cry, True, if we sin, we go to 
Hell; but meantime we are happy here; we can get 
gloriously drunk, and enjoy ourselves wonderfully here. 
If the righteous suffer most in this life, I think I'll run 
the risk of going to Hell, for the sake of being happy 
while I live. So long as I have good health, I'll take 
my pleasure, and live in sin; but before I die, I'll com- 
ply with the conditions of salvation, and secure Heaven 
hereafter! That is the point. Men will sin while they 
dare to; because sin makes them, according to such 
preaching, so happy. This is very convenient, to have 
the blessing of sin here, without any punishment, and 
the blessings of Heaven hereafter! Such is the natural 
tendency of such preaching. Away with it! 

Mr. Waller teaches thai the oppressors are happy in 
this world, while the oppressed is crushed and miserable. 
Yet, according to the Orthodox preaching, it i3 most like- 
ly that the oppressors will be the ones to get to Heaven: 
being more enlightened, wealthy, and powerful, they 
have more opportunities, before death, of repentance; 
while the ignorant and degraded, whom they have crushed, 
go to Hell; they have no opportunities of learning the 



UNIVERSALIS M . 



239 



truth. The Pagan world — where do they go, when they 
die? I suppose they live wretchedly here, and go to 
Hell hereafter, if Partialism be true. Such doctrines 
make the evils of this world worse. I see no rectified- 
Hon of the government of God, in Partialism, as it pro- 
fesses to show. 

Again, he teaches the same error, in preaching up the 
happiness of ihe wicked. How happy, says be, are the 
wicked 1 Quoting the language of David, "They are 
not troubled like other men," etc., but afterwards, when 
he found out their true condition* what did David say? 
" They are utterly consumed with terror." He says his- 
foot well nigh slipped, and he says to the Lord, "I was as- 
a fool and a least before thee." If we admit the senti- 
ment of David, the -same sentiment is true at the present 
day. Mr. Waller forgets that the sinner realizes the ter- 
rible consequences of his own sin, as David did, lor a 
time — until he learned the truth. 

The allusion was made to the persecutors of the Walden- 
ses, Albigenses, and Huguenots. What were they persecut- 
ed for? For not believing with the " mass of men." Though 
righteous men, they were damned here by the " mass," 
and thought to be damned hereafter also! So is it with 
all Christians who have been persecuted on earth, It 
was because they did not believe and act with the " mass- 
of well regulated minds" of the age in^hich they lived. 
Heretios, not believing with the " ma^p of men, were 
burned, because of their opinions; and were supposed be- 
sides this to suffer eternal wrath to come, in Hell. Those 
who persecuted and tormented them here, died Christians, 
and believe they will be saved!- So that they will look- 
down on the everlasting burnings of those thus sent before 
their time to Hell, according to the Orthodox doctrine. It" 
sends some of the persecuted to perdition, and admits 
some of the persecutors to glory ! 

Another argument was advanced to prove the unjust 
distribution of rewards and punishments in this life. See 
Ezek. xxxiii. 17, where we see the similarity of this state- 
ment of Mr. Waller and of those who found fault with 
the government of God, at that time. "Yet the child- 
dren of thy people say, the way of the Lord is not equal; 
but as for them, their way is not equal ; [mark now,] 
but if the wicked man turn from his wickedness and do 



240 



DEBATE ON 



that, which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.*** 
[This is the doctrine 1 have advanced all along.] What 
else? " Yet ye say the way of the Lord is not equal. 
Oh! ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after 
his ways." The ways of God are equal; though Mr. 
Waller may say they are not "equal;" he thus fiatly 
contradicts the declaration of Almighty God himself! 

He spoke of the demon cruelty of Universalism, as to 
saints, and the happiness it offered to the wicked. De- 
mon cruelty? Yes, the saints do suffer; is that the cruel- 
ty of Universalism? He admits the fact of their suffering. 
But their sufferings work out for them glory. Il is good 
for us to suffer, to be purified, and chastened. Demon 
cruelty indeed! to speak of sufferings that shall end with 
life! No, the " demon cruelty" is on the other side, which 
damns men to all eternity; which brings men into the world 
• — as Pagans for example — without their own consent, and 
drives them through it, and then drives them out of it, and 
to Hell, without a chance of salvation, to all eternity! 
There is no demon cruelty there, I suppose! Oh! the 
consistency of the man; to talk of the demon cruelty of 
mere temporal sufferings, that result in good; yet believ- 
ers in never ending, irremediable sufferings! 

My friend inquires if men are purified in the grave, by 
the charnel house, the worms, etc., etc. Where is the 
necessity of all ibis talking? He can do this after I ad- 
vance such a nflPon. 

Why is he still discussing with Father Ballou, and not 
with me? I again invite Mr. Waller's attention to my ar- 
guments, during this discussion, and not to some body else's. 

Statements have been made here, that Universalism takes 
away free agency. Mr. Waller says, Universalism would 
imply that men were forced to love God. Who has talk- 
ed of compelling men to love God? Not I, or any Uni- 
versal ist that I know of. I shall not discuss free agency. 
So far as this discussion is concerned, we may grant all 
that is asked on this subject. But I would like to know if 
it be not equally taking away free agency, to compel men 
to go to Hell ; the Orthodox Hell, I mean — not the Bible 
Hell; but the Orthodox Hell, where men are compelled to 
hate God to eternity; and besides, will men go to Hell, if 
free agents'! Will they? Not if they are free agents, to 
the extent that Arminianism teaches. If my friend, Mr. 



UNI VERSALISM. 



24 i 



Waller were to find "himself dead, and not perfectly pre- 
pared, and was told to go to Hell, and looked across the 
gulf, and saw the surges of the lake of everlasting des- 
pair, and heard the cries of torment coming up from 
thence, if he were a free agent, he would not go! [A 
laugh.] I speak this not for your amusement, but to show 
the absurdity of the sentiments advanced here about free 
agency. So if any others were ordered to go there T 
would they go, as free agents? No! They would start 
back with horror and say, we will not go there 1 . What 
then is to be done with them, remaining free agentst 
because they can't go to Heaven, and won't go to Hell! God 
will compell them to go to Hell. Oh I then he must not 
compel them to go to Heaven, for fear of destroying their 
free agency, but it is perfectly consistent with free agen^ 
cy, to compel them to go to Hell, where they must curse 
and blaspheme God to all eternity I Oh! yes, it is a 
dreadful thing for Universalists to say that God compels 
them to go to Heaven, to be ure. and holy ; but 'to com- 
pel them to go to Hell, is the act of a righteous and be- 
nevolent God! But I have not taught that God forces mer< 
into Heaven. 

Mr. Waller said the sins of the sinner do not cease at 
his death. Then he is an advocate of universal damnation/ 
for all are sinners; so it is held that there is no change 
after death. This is universal damnation — palpable and 
clear. 

This is what the Bible says, that "men are rewarded ac- 
cording to their works," not hereafter, but here. Mr. Wal- 
ler professes to go by the Bible. He afterwards said that 
the repentant sinner was no longer responsible for past 
siri9. What, then, is the object of all that argument about 
sins not ceasing at death, and throwing pebbles in the 
lake, the waves of which rebounded against the shores of 
eternity, etc.? Now he says they are not responsible for 
past sins. What is the use of a judgment, then, in the 
future? He has given up the point, and nullified the way 
he tried to get rid of the force of the argument, that pun~ 
ishment took place before trial, according to Partial ism. 

It appears now, that Tom Paine was a pretty nice fel- 
low, after all. (He attempted to refer us to him, as hit 
■followers.) But now he is a man of good common sense, 
net quite so bad as the Universalists at the present day, 
16 



DEBATE OR 



He may also claim Herbert, the founder of the deistical) 
system. If Tom Paine and Herbert repented, judgment 
would not be pronounced for evil works done after they 
were dead. Thus he overthrows his cum position, and 
now thinks Tom Paine to be a clever fellow, and can 
claim him on his own side, as to that point! A glorious- 
fraternity. 

We have quotations of passages containing the word' 
Hell, in which he substitutes the word Hinnom: and this 
was for fun, I suppose, for " amusement. ,? I call on him 
to come out with his explanation of Hell, and say what 
word in the original languages of Scripture means the state 
of endless damnation. Which Hell is the place of endless- 
damnation, in the original? When that is done I will 
answer him. It is due to himself, to the truth, and to you* 
who are assembled to hear this discussion, that he should 
explain. If he will not, I will myself explain the mean- 
ing of the word in the Bible. 

[me. waller's tenth reply.] 
My object to-day will be to present as much original 
matter as I can. I regret that the time remaining for this 
debate will compel me to omit many things I had prepared 
for the occasion, and even to condense what I may yet in- 
troduce, more than I could wish. Mr, Pingree and my- 
self have agreed to make a speech each in the morning of 
to-morrow, to contain no new matter : consequently I am 
compelled to introduce whatever of new matter I can, in my 
speeches of to day. Mr. Pingree has evidently exhausted' 
his stock. He has shaken his wallet to the bottom, and 1 
emptied his last pebble. He has done little else than reit- 
erate for some speeches past. He reminds one of the 
complaint the negro made against his fiddle : it would play 
no other tune but " r tip as it twasl f Hs as it twa$P' > But I 
must be excused from following him around his everlast- 
ing circle. These matters he keeps repeating, I have' 
hitherto refuted. I have other matters in hand, if he has- 
not. 

Mr. Pingree complains that I am arguing with Mr. Bal- 
lou! Well, I must argue with some one. I came her© 
for an argument: nor do I believe that my opponent has 
any great cause of complaint against me for not bestowing 
enough attention upon himself. 1 am not conscious of 



UNXYERSALISM. 



243 



having neglected him; and I have heard no complaint on 
that score either in or out of the house, except from him- 
self. Nor am I to be terrified by threats of bringing Mr. 
Ballou to meet me. If he can do the cause of Universal- 
ism more justice than Mr. Pingree, let him be brought. 
I do not expect to go to Texas, and my whereabouts can 
easily be found. Indeed, when I consented to meet my 
opponent, I thought I had testimony sufficient to induce 
the belief that he was the Ajax Telamon of his party; if 
at all. but a slight remove below Mr. Ballou himself! But 
my friend seems te squirm a little under the idea of being 
the child of his " Father Ballon!" But why should he? 
In the judgment of charity, can any one suppose for a 
moment that Mr. Pingree would be what he now is theolo- 
gically, if Mr. Ballou had never flourished? But this by 
the way. You observed, no doubt, that while my opp-onent, 
in one breath, complained of my arguing with Ballou; in 
the very next, he endorsed the sentiments of Ballou which 
i controverted! 

Mr. Pingree took one startling position that claims atten- 
tion. He said, that the sufferings of the righteous and the 
wicked were light afflictions endured for a few moments, 
and which worked for them a far more exceeding and 
eternal weight of glory! 

Mr. Pingree. Let me explain. 

Mr-, Waller. No explanation is necessary. It is a 
question cf fact. I say you did take this position, and I 
appeal to the stenographer. Will he answer? 

Stenographer. He did say so. 

That is enough. Indeed it is in perfect keeping with 
the rest ef his system. If the righteous and the wicked 
are admitted into the next world on perfect equality, with- 
out any reference to their conduct in this life, then of 
course, the afflictions of the wicked just as much as those 
of the righteous, work for them an exceeding and eternal 
weight of glory! And it follows too, from the fact that 
the Universalist hell, instead of being a place of punish- 
ment, is nothing more than a moral labratoiy, purging 
away the dross of the soul, and making men the better 
adapted to eternal happiness! Let the man who is suffer- 
ing in this world for his sins— the drunkard, the thief, the 
highwayman, and the murderer— take consolation. These 
light afflictions are but for a moment, and work for him a 



244 



DEBATE ON 



far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory! If such 
be the consequences, who would not glory in committing 
Buch crimes and receiving such punishment? And why 
not call the man hung for murder, as well as "an Apostle 
crucified for his faith, a saint and a martyr, seeing that 
their sufferings produce the same glorious results here- 
after? ! 

It is the legitimate tendency of Universalfsrrt to release 
the sinner from punishment. 1 beg leave to make a quo- 
tation from the " Pro and Con of Universalism." 

But conscience becomes callous after a while,' say 
you, * and the sinner of every kind learns to perpetrate 
his deeds without compunction; hence, Instead of increas- 
ing with the ratio of guilt, (as justice would seem to re- 
quire.) punishment actually diminishes as crime increases.'* 
A specious objection, I grant you, reader, very specious; 
but you overlook the fact that this moral insensibility is 
itself a punishment-— the greatest of punishments. " p. 249, 

Here then is the deepest pit of the Universal is t's Hell-— 
this " moral insensibility!" When there is no longer com- 
punctions for sin,-— when the sinner is past feeling, be 
experiences the most acute pain — u the greatest of punish- 
ments!!'''' And this " greatest of punishments," adds Mr. 
Pingree, works out for him a far more exceeding and 
eternal weight of glory 1! I merely state this doctrine; it 
would be an insult to your good sense to make one com- 
ment upon it. It sinks of its own weight to the bottom of 
bottomless nonsense! 

But I must pass on. After I have broken the phalanx 
and routed the entire army, it will be time enough to look 
out for the stragglers. 

I have demonstrated the punishment of the wicked, and 
the happiness of the righteous in another life. I now pro- 
pose to show, that these estates are eternal. Respecting 
the righteous there is no controversy. My opponent and 
myself believe they will be eternally happy. That the 
wicked will be eternally miserable, I propose to show. 

First. By an argumentum ad hominum — by applying tlie 
arguments of Universa/ists against themselves. 

The attributes of God are unchangeable. They are not 
opposed to the present sin and misery of mankind. On 
the contrary, Universalism tells us that the Almighty de- 
creed the existence of sin and misery in thfo world — thai 



UNIVESSALISM. 



245 



they exist in accordance with his will and pleasure. It 
follows then, that they must exist through eternity, .or God 
must change:— -he must form for himself another will and 
pleasure!! 

God is love, and his love is unchangeable: and his love 
to his creatures caused him to predestinate their present 
sin and misery. And what love decrees for them, being 
unchangeable, must be eternal!!! 

God is just — unchangeably just. And justice to his crea- 
tures compelled him to decree their present sin and mis- 
ery; and as these are necessary for their present good, the 
same justice requires they should continue would without 

God is holy — unchangeably holy: and his holiness abso- 
lutely demands the sin and misery of his children in this 
world. And this holiness never changing, being the same 
yesterday, to-day, and forever, it absolutely demands the 
existence of sin and misery through, eternity!!! 

God is very merciful and very kind, and changes not. 
His mercy and goodness require the present sin and mis- 
ery of his children; and since his loving kindness faileth 
not, therefore this sin and misery must endure for ever!!! 

This is the inevitable result of the Universalist doctrine. 
It subverts itself, and establishes beyond controversy, that 
sin and misery, as they now exist, must continue eter- 
nally. 

Second. The Scriptures do not reveal one idea respecting 
the release of sinners from their future punishment. 

I have shown that, according to the Scriptures and to 
Universalism, sinners are punished after death: of course, 
unless the Scriptures teach us respecting its termination, 
we have no right to suppose their punishment will ever 
«nd. If there be such a release, surely we might expect 
to find it written as with a pencil of light, on the pages of 
the Bible. A doctrine so important would not be conceal- 
ed; and if, as Restorationists affirm, men are redeemed 
from hell, the doctrine would be so plainly recorded that 
he who runs might read. The doctrine of justification in 
this life, is clearly set forth in the Scriptures. The most 
simple may easily learn what they must do to be saved. 
Now, if sinners are to be forgiven, and if souls are to be 
saved in the next world, is it not of the last importance 
that we should know it! And yet where is it recorded la 



246 



DEBATE OH 



the Bible? No where! If such a thing occurs, God has 
not g|yen information respecting it; and no one has re- 
turned from the spirit-land bringing the intelligence. A 
truth so important, God would not have concealed from 
us. But it is not true, because not revealed. 

But I will not press this point. I have no opponent on 
this subject at present. Although Mr. Pingree professes 
to fraternize with the Restorationists, yet I am persuaded 
he will not vindicate them on this point. 

Third. But the Scriptures employ the very strongest terms 
to express the perpiluity of punishment ; and if it is possi- 
ble for language to convey the idea of eternal punishment, 
then that doctrine is taught in the Scriptures. 

1 have already alluded to this subject. I asked Mr. 
Pingree, for example, to produce from the Greek lan- 
guage, a stronger term than aionios to convey the idea of 
endless duration. He has produced no such word, he has 
made no attempt of the kind ; nor will he. This word is 
used to express the duration of punishment. Mr. Pingree 
has quoted authors. He has read what he calls conces- 
sions. He seemed to triumph because he had a few 
learned men to sustain him on a point or two. He has ap- 
pealed to Ceasar, and to Ceasar he shall go. Let us then 
go to those who must know the meaning of this word ap- 
plied to the duration of punishment, and ask for its signi- 
fication. It is a Greek word, and shall we ask Greek 
scholars? With united voice, for eighteen centuries, per- 
sons skilled in that language, of every creed and country, 
tell us tha the prevailing meaning of that word is endless, 
eternal! It is a Greek word, let us demand its meaning of 
the Greeks themselves. If they do not know its true- 
import, no one can possibly know it. They have ex- 
pressed but one opinion on it, from the first introduction 
of Christianity among them to the present time, viz: it 
means endless, eternal. So the Apostolic fathers decided. 
So decided the Church of the second century. So did all 
the Latin and Greek fathers. And in this opinion have 
concurred all Christians, and especially all scholars and 
critics of any note, until the days of Hosea Ballou. If 
this be the general and common meaning of the term, it 
must be its meaning when used in reference to punish- 
ment, unless it be shown that necessity requires that it 
should not retain it. Can this necessity be proved to exist? 
It cannot — it never has been ! 



tTNIVERSALISM. 



247 



Why should this term have been selected by the Spirit 
of God, to express the duration of punishment, if it was 
to last but a few days, or at most but a few years? A term 
^employed to express the perpituity of the happiness of 
•saints in light, as well as the stability of the throne of 
God? Was it used to mislead? — to impose a falsehood? 
Who so impious as to make such a charge, and yet 
how else can we explain the matter, unless Universal- 
ism be admitted to be the climax of falsehood. 

Sere then I rest. This word alone settles the question, 
.until my opponent proves that it cannot have its common 
.and literal meaning when used in leference to punishment 
The burthen of proof is his. The literal meaning must 
not be departed from except necessity compels. He must 
-show the necessity in this case, or his cause falls to the 
■es rth . 

As I must hasten to get over as much ground is I can, 
I shall leave this branch of our subject for the present at 
least, and hasten to consider the propriety of punislimerii, 
and to what end it is inflicted- 

Mr. Pingree has endeavored to be facetious and then 
•severe upon our doctrine respecting punishment for sin.. 
But he has ta':en very little p-ains to guard kis own sys- 
tem, which maybe thus illustrate! : A father takes his 
child, and makes him steal ; and He, and swear, and mur- 
der; and then because he does these fhings, he takes a 
-cart-whip, and flogs him severely. The little son says* 
"Father, did you not force me to lie, and steal, etc? v 
** Yes, my son, I d'd,"" replies t:he father. '* Then why do 
you whip me for doing itf'" ; ' Because it is my wilj and 
pleasure, and I do it for your good!''' Just so Universal- 
ism represents God. He makes men sin, and punishes 
them for doing it, and this punishment is for their good! 
Well, suppose v/e grant it If God, in wisdom and love 
fa as made men sin, and then punishes them for it in this 
world, and all for their good, the same wisdom and love 
will perpetuate this system of benevolence world without 
•end; and make men forever sin and forever punish them 
for ill Or will the gentleman argue that God becomes a 
wiser legislator in the future stale, and abolishes there his 
-sublunary code of disciplinary punishment, founded in in- 
cite wisdom, and executed in mercy and love? He must 



248 



DEBATE OK 



argue thus, or abandon his system; and yet if he does so 
argue, he perpetrates the most egregious nonsense. For 
he now says, that the present code of laws is founded in in- 
finite wisdom, so that if it is changed in the next world", 
it must be for the worse or the better. If for the worse, 
then God falls below himself, and if for the better, then- 
he must go beyond that which is infinite! So, let Mr. 
Pingree turn as he may, and he is met by insurmountable 
difficulties. 

But I wish to relieve him, if I can, from the agony 
he is in respecting our sentiments no divine punish- 
ment. Indeed, he wholly misconceives our doctrine-. 
He has been fighting a phantom. No one teaches respect- 
ing punishments what he has been opposing. It is a mat- 
ter of serious regret that he has not taken more pains to 
inform himself on this branch of the subject. 

We affirm that the punishment of the wicked is just, and 
that what is just is nor contrary to goodness and love, hut 
harmonizes perfectly with them. We argue that their pun- 
ishment is just, 

First. Because tinners, if saved, must he pardoned or 
forgiven of their sins. Pardon or forgivness, in human 
language, means to dispense with a penalty justly due for 
crimes committed-— that the individual pardoned might 
justly have suffered the punishment from which he is re- 
leased. This, I say, is the meaning of the term in the 
language of men; and if the sacred' writers used the 
language of our race, so we must understand their use of 
this word, ff they did not use it, in what language did 
they write? and how can We interpret what they have 
written ? Now it is declared, in divers peaces, that 
men are pardoned of their srns, are forgiven, — their in- 
iquities blotted out, covered, remitted, etc. The Univer- 
sal ist idea of such terms and phrases is, that no man is- 
pardoned until he has suffered the full penalty of his; 
crimes. This is to speak in no tongue under the Heavens,. 
What governor ever said that he had pardoned a man in? 
the penitentiary after he had served the utmost moment 
required by the law? And t hat would be a most inefficient 
pardon which should be given to the murderer, after he- 
had been hung until he was dead! And that too would be- 
a most singular method of forgiving a debt, which should 
be delayed until the utmost farthing had been exacted!— 



UNIVBRSALISM. 



249 



But the Scriptures abundantly show that God intends to 
be understood in this matter as we understand one anoth- 
er. The Savior directed his discipies to pray their Heav- 
enly Father, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our 
debtors, 1 " Notice the phrase, "as we forgive:'''' the same 
principles apply, in human and divine affairs. If the man 
talks nonsense when he says, he has forgiven a debt upon re- 
ceiving the last cent of principal and interest, it is equally 
nonsensical to say that our Heavenly Father forgives us, af- 
ter we have paid the penalty of our sins. Besides, I have 
demonstrated it to be supreme nonsense to argue that the 
term pardon or forgivness is used in one sense by the sac- 
red, and into totally a different sense by profane writers. 
As man forgives, so God forgives. We are ten thousand 
talents in debt, and have nothing to pay, and our Heaven- 
ly Father, who is rich in mercy, for the sake of his Son, 
forgives the debt. It follows then, that if our sins be for- 
given us, we might have justly been punished for them, just 
as a man who is pardoned for an offence against the State, 
is saved by that pardon from a just punishment. 

So then the punishment of sinners is founded in justice, 
because all who are saved, are pardoned, and consequent- 
ly released from a punishment that might have been right- 
eously inflicted. 

Second. The pimishment of the sinner is just, because 
no man can be saved except by the grace or favor of God; 
and if by grace, then unmerited and undeserved. 

The terms of the proposition in debate take for granted 
that men are in a lost and unhallowed condition; and 
hence my opponent assumes to prove their " ultimate holi- 
ness and salvation." They are so lost, that without a Sav- 
ior, none ever could have been saved. Hence, by grace, 
we are saved. Christ who was rich, for our sakes became 
poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich. 
'* By his stripes we are healed." Not by works of right- 
eousness which we have done, but according to his mer- 
cy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost. We have no right to demand 
grace. We had no right to require the Son of God to die 
for us. Then we did not deserve salvation. We might just- 
ly have been left in a lost condition. Of course our pun- 
ishment is just and righteous, and must remain forever so, 
until we can justly and righteously demand the grace of 



250 



DEBATE ON 



salvation — until we can justly and righteously claim the 
death of the Son of God. in order to our redemption. 

[ am aware that Universalism may escape this by denying 
the doctrine of mercy and grace. In fact, it is a system 
that destroys itself. It asserts, in effect, that there is no 
salvation, and consequently, no need of a Savior. What 
does Jesus do for sinners, according to Universalism? Be 
does not redeem them from guilt; for if so, they could not 
receive full and adequate punishments for it. He does 
not save them from the curse of the law, else why do 
men suffer all that the law threatens? He does not save 
them from their sins; or why do so many die in their sins! 
Aye, why do none die free from sin, according to Mr. 
Pingree? The truth is, if Universalism admits that Jesus 
is a Savior, then they must admit that salvation is of 
grace, and if of grace, it is undeserved, and might justly 
and righteously have been withhold; which is just the 
same as to assert, that punishment being averted by the 
grace of God through Jesus Christ, then sinners deserved 
that punishment, and had no right to expect, much less to 
demand their salvation. If by grace they are saved from 
punishment in this world (and they are saved from punish- 
ment, if saved from sin) then they deserved punishment 
in this world. The same is just as true of the next world. 
They have no right to demand grace. It is a sovereign 
act, wholly undeserved on the part of the sinner. 

No man has a right to demand exemption form the con- 
sequences of his own voluntary act. He may seek it as a 
favor, but cannot demand it as a right. Sin is man's own 
voluntay act, and punishment the natural consequence. 
If he is exempted from the consequences, it must be by 
grace; and but for grace, the sinner might of course just- 
ly reap forever the fruit of his doings! 

Third. It is just, because of the heinous nature of sin; 
sin is treason against the Almighty. 

I have already explained this point. If sin were per- 
mitted, the governments of God would be overthrown. 
The sinner has revolted from that government, and wages 
unrelenting and deadly warfare against it. It is a prerog- 
ative of every government to preserve its own existence. 
To do this, it must punish those who would subvert it. 
Justice and righteousness demand such a procedure. 
The Universalis themselves admit that punishment, in 



UNiVERSALISM. 



251 



this world, is founded in mercy and love, and is a just and 
necessary consequence of sin: how then can they deny 
the same principles to pertain in relation to punishment in 
a" future state? If it justly pertains in time, why not in 
eternity? 

But Fourth. Punishment is infiicled with a view to the 
good of society, and not of the individual. 

Our penal laws are for the preservation of the reputa- 
tion, the property, and the lives of the people of the Cofn- 
rnoowealth; and the punishment is inflicted for the publie 
good. A government that would pardon all criminals, 
while it manifested great regard for the comfort and 
feelings of the violators of law, would be unjust to and 
reckless 1 of the rights and safety of the good and virtuous 
citizens of the State. The principle of procedure in the 
Divine Government in punishing sinners is the same as 
this. Sin is an injury upon God's Government which was 
made for the good of his intelligent creatures. The evils 
of sin are not confined to the man who is the transgres- 
sor. Its baneful influences extend to others. Hence he 
is punished for the public good. This is the point I wish 
my opponent to see. He does not understand our doc- 
trine. Like the children in the market place; we have 
mourned unto him, and he has not lamented; we have 
piped unto him, and he has not danced. We have 
given him line upon line, and precept upon precept, and 
yet he will not perceive our position. But 1 will make it 
so plain, that you shall see it, if Mr. Pingree cannot. 

God condescended to be temporal Governor of the Jews, 
and to give them national laws. Let us hear the reason 
of his penal enactments; Deut. xiii. 10, 11, "Thou shalt 
stone him [the idolator] with stones, till he die, because 
he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy 
God, and all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no 
more any such wickedness as this is among yquP This man 
was not punished for his reformation, but that the public 
might be deterred from following his example. This is 
the reason he gives for this punishment. And so he rea- 
sons in relation to future punishments; 2 Peter ii. 6, 
"Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, 
condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ex- 
ample unto those that after should live ungodly.-'' Jurle 7, 
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, 
in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and 



252 



DEBATE ON 



going after strange flesh are set forth for an example, suf- 
fering the vengeance of eternal fre. v Here then is the rea- 
son of punishment — it is an "example" to warn others — 
to deter from sin. Upon this principle is based the penal 
laws of all the governments in the universe. 

It follows then, that pu ishment is inflicted not in hatred 
or in affection for the individual, but of his crime, and in 
view of its deleterious influence upon society if unrestrain- 
ed. He is punished for the public good — to preserve the 
social compact. Why is the murderer punished? Not to 
gratify revengeful feelings, nor to gratify public indigna- 
tion. It is not uncommon for deep and wide spread sym- 
pathy to be felt for the unfortunate criminal. I could nev- 
er see a person hanged. He may have been a young man 
of respectable and extensive connexions, and, in an evil 
hour, he imbued his hands in the blood of a fellow mortal. 
The jury that condemns, anil the Judge who passes the 
awful sentence of his doom may weep for the poor man, 
but they feel that his crime must be punished. The safe- 
ty of society requires it. 

The history of our country furnishes another illustra- 
tion. You remember the case of Major Andre, taken as a 
spy. There was not a heart in America that did not sympa- 
thize with that amiable and excellent young man. The 
great and good Washington signed his death warrant 
with tears. He felt a father's sympathy for him. But 
what could he do ? If his feelings as a man were left to 
predominate, then the mighty interests of his country 
must be overthrown. The public good, the independence 
and liberty of his country, and the fate of unborn mil- 
lions demanded the execution of the unfortunate British 
officer, and he was hung as a spy. 

So God deals with the impenitent sinner under his 
government, for he acts on this principle. He punishes not 
in anger or affection. Feelings have nothing to do in the 
case; they are not taken into consideration. He proceeds 
on principles of justice and righteousness, which are but 
Oth er names for goodness and love. He is a sovereign, 
King of kings, and Lord of lords. His empire is the moral 
universe, lie has ordained laws for the good of his sub- 
jects. His punishments then are not inflicted in hatred or 
affection for the individual, but to preserve the law, and 
to protect the rights of his law abiding creatures. Nor 
is this punishment inflicted arbitrarily, but is the unavoid- 



UN I VERS ALISM. 



253 



able result of sin, and is inflicted from the necessity of 
the case. Man seeks his own ruin, he runs away from 
happiness. God punishes him by withholding mercies, 
Hitherto he has given him the blessings of life and health. 
Man has used them to the inju ry of his benefactor. That was 
a terrible sentence which God uttered respecting Ephraim, 
" He is joined to his idols, let him alone." And suppose 
God should withdraw all his blessings from us, and let us 
alone, what greater punishment could we imagine? Sup- 
pose such a sentence now executed — the Sun is extin- 
guished! — the Stars fall from Heaven! — the Earth flies 
to pieces! — the diseases and miseries hitherto restrained 
by his kind hand, seize upon us!— the malignant spirits 
heretofore confined and fettered to some extent, now in 
fiendish fury rend our souls! In a word, all is night and 
anguish, and keen despair! And why should he not let us 
alone? Who of you would continue to give money to an 
individual, that had been in the habit of abusing your 
bounty to your injury, and that you knew would use 
whatever you gave him to abuse your feelings, and to des- 
troy your goods? And yet you would ask the Almighty 
to act thus with the sinners, who will not come unto Jesus 
that they may be saved! 

But Mr. Ping re e argues that men are not free agents in 
their destruction. He says they would not go to hell, and 
yet, according to the Orthodox, they are sent there. This 
is ingenious, but it has no solidity. Men do not volunta- 
rily embrace the punishment, yet they perform volunta- 
rily what they know will lead to punishment. The act 
then was voluntarily performed, in full view of the conse- 
quences. In this consists the free agency. Does Mr. Fili- 
gree deny that a murderer is a moral agent? No man is 
a murderer unless he kills with malice aforethought. And 
shall we be told that he did not do the deed of his own 
will — that he was not a free moral agent in the murder, 
because he did not want to be hanged! If such is not 
the point of Mr. Pingree's argument, then I am too dull to 
perceive it: — -because a man does not want to suffer in 
hell, therefore, he cannot be a free moral agent in doing 
that which he knows will consign him to perdition ! Such 
a conclusion from such premises is worthy only of chil- 
dren. Nor is righteousness or heaven forced upon any 
man. If Universalisrn be true, holiness and virtue are 



254 



DEBATE ON 



forced upon man! He is not free to love and serve Glodj 
but is compelled, nolens vol ens, to do so! If this be so, as I 
have demonstrated, there is neither virtue nor vice among 
men. 

But the gentleman contends that our doctrine is, that 
God places the sinner in the next world where he cannot 
serve him, and must blaspheme him forever. Now, I pro- 
test against his imputing his own doctrine to us; for sup- 
posing that we taught such sentiments, it would be but \o 
extend to the other world that system of things which he 
contends prevails in this! He says that here God makes 
men sin and punishes them for it. But we hold to no such 
views, either in reference to this world or the next. Man 
sins voluntarily, and God punishes him for his sins, be- 
cause they are infractions of his law, and tend to the in- 
jury and misery of his intelligent creatures. He takes no 
pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but rather that he 
should turn and live. To save sinners, he sent his Sou 
into the world, that whosoever believeth in him might not 
perish but have everlasting life. 

But I must hasten. My time is nearly expired. I in- 
tended to correct some palpable mistakes in the gentleman's 
last speech; but for the want of time, I must leave them to 
work out their own destruction. On the subject of a vica- 
rious atonement, I would recommend him to examine some 
theological dictionary. His remarks on that point were 
entirely harmless* because he wholly mistook the mean- 
ing of the terms. He does not know what vicarious 
atonement means. He oWes it to his reputations to study 
such matters. And he is just as ignorant of Calvinism. 
Calvinists do not deny free moral agency. He asks me to 
state whether I am an Arminian or a Calvinist? / am 
neither. I profess to belong to the school of Christ; and 
to take the Bible as the man of my council. The Bible 

ALONE IS MY RELIGION. 

The plan of man's salvation is so plain that he who runs 
may read. God so loved the world that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whoever believeth on him might not 
perish, but have everlasting life; This was a merciful 
provision. Man did not deserve tt. By the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ, God can be just, and the justifier of him that 
believes. We are told in the parable, that a king pro- 
vided a great supper, and invited all to come. But some 



tTN I VERSAL I SM i 



excused themselves and would not come. The king was 
not to blame for their refusal, but Was justly provoked at 
their contempt of his bounty ; Just so in the Gospel. Here 
is a glorious feast prepared, and the invitation goes forth, 
"whosoever will, let him come!"" If men eat, they shall 
never hunger; if they refuse they must die* If they da 
not come, whose fault is it? Not God's ; for he has pre- 
pared the feast, and bids all to come. But it is man's 
fault. He will not come, that he may have life. What 
more could love and mercy do? And what more can man 
desire or demand? Had God done more, he must have 
destroyed man's moral agency, and thereby rendered him 
as incapable of good or evil, as a stock or a stone. But 
the sinner must undergo a moral change, or he cannot be 
happy. This my opponent admits. Then the sinner 
must be a free moral agent, or he cannot receive such a 
change. 

[mr. pworee's eleventh speech.] 
I will now notice one passage which has been intro- 
duced, as referring to a future judgment after death. It 
(s Heb. ix. 27, 28. I vvill as briefly as possible give a hint 
or two, to show its proper intention and meaning. I have 
not time to dwell upon it, at length. I take this passage, 
especially, because a great impression is attempted to be 
made from it, as referring to a judgment in a future life. 
1 have stated and established the Scripture doctrine of 
judgment, during the reign of Christ, commencing at his 
appearing in his kingdom; to which most passages speak- 
ing of judgment refer, and by which they are explained. 
I have cited the 20th chapter of Revelations, also Peter, 
with others, and given general explanations as to that 
judgment. But this passage in 9th of Hebrews is not of 
that kind. It relates to another judgments "And as it is 
appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judg- 
ment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: 
and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second 
time without sin unto salvation/' 

The context will show the subject about which the Apos- 
tle is arguing. The Epistle contrasts, or compares, the 
offerings under the old dispensation, and the one great 
offering under the new. Refer to the preceding chapter, 
beginning at the 4th verse; where the Apostle speaks of 



256 



DEBATE ON 



the priests entering " the holy of holies, by the blood of 
others, once in each year;" with which he contrasts the 
offering of Christ. The verse, " And as it is appointed 
unto men once to die, and after that the judgment," is 
illustrated by Exodus xxviii. 15th and 30th; 16th and 9th 
of Leviticus, and 6th of Numbers. The high priest wore 
" a breast plate of judgment," when he came out to bless 
the people; and he pronounced a judgment of justification 
upon the people who were " looking" for his return; not 
of condemnation, or punishment; but a blessing. 

So is Jesus Christ a high priest, who appeared once for 
all, offering his own life; 44 and unto them that look for him 
shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." 
This shows that his judgment is not followed by condemna- 
tion, but salvation. I will repeat the whole verse: "And 
as it is appointed unto men [or the men, translating the 
Greek article] once to die, and after that the judgment, so 
Christ was once offered," etc. This does not refer to the 
death of all men, and the judgment common to all as being 
in a future state. It refers to the priests, who "were 
taken from among men," as Paul had before said. So Christ 
is represented as a high priest who was to die, as it was ap- 
pointed unto those once to die. He was to enter the Di- 
vine presence with "his own blood;" and not like them, 
" with the blood of others" What likeness is there be- 
tween the reconciling death of Christ, followed by judg- 
ment, and the death of all men, and their suffering judg- 
ment in the life to come? The Apostle says, "And as it is 
appointed unto men once to die, but after that the judg- 
ment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; 
unto them that look for him shall he appear without sin 
unto salvation." It is clear, therefore, that if the "judg- 
ment" here spoken of be intended to apply to a general 
judgment of all men in a future life, and to affect their 
future condition in the eternal world, the passage is a 
proof of universal salvation; for there is no damnation 
after it. It is a "judgment" only 44 to salvation," accord- 
ing to the text itself. I challenge Mr. Waller to produce 
a word, a single hint, in all this passage, of misery, of dam- 
nation, in the life to come; or even after this " judg- 
ment 1" 

After this brief explanation, I pass on to review my 
friend's last speech. 1 am sorry ha saw proper to refer 



UNIVERSALISM. 



257 



to my speech as disparaging to that venerated individual, 
Ho sea Ballou. 1 have uttered nothing disparaging 
towards him. God forbid that I should! There has not 
lived a nobler spirit since the age of Luther. He was a 
better man than Luther, and his reformation is a greater 
one than Luther's. I merely said that my friend was dis- 
cussing with him, instead of me, as he ought to do; and 
that I should be glad if he were here to defend himself 
I protest against the charge of disparaging him. 1 would 
not do it for my right hand. 

As to my remarks about the sufferings of the Apostles, 
working out for them a weight of glory hereafter, and of 
their enduring them willingly for a reward, etc., I had 
reference to the purposes of God in them; and said that 
they gladly endured their labors and sufferings for a re- 
ward. That reward was the enjoyment of the " kingdom 
of God," here, which was " within" them, and not the gift 
of immortal glory hereafter. 

As to what is held by Universalists on that subject, I 
refer you to the work called the " Pro and Con of Univer- 
salism," by Rev. George Rogers. I desire you all to read 
it. It is one of the best books ever written on our doc- 
trines, and I recommend it to all who wish to have a gene- 
ral view of Universalism, better than can elsewhere be as 
readily procured; — not that I advocate every minor idea 
contained in it; but in the whole view of Universalism, it is 
the best work I have seen. 

We have now an argument for the endless punishment 
of the wicked, to wit: From the attributes of God — an "ar- 
gumentum ad hominem;" that is, according to us, as God in 
unchangeable, and not now opposed to sin and misery, he 
will not be so hereafter. 

I suppose, then, if a physician should have to amputate 
your limb, to save your life, and you should endure great 
agony during the operation, you would say to the physi- 
cian, now you have inflicted pain, and therefore you will 
continue to inflict similar pain upon me through life. 
That's the argument. But that is not all as to unchange- 
ableness. God has made man "subject to vanity," says 
Paul. But he says afterwards, " the creature [man] shall 
be delivered from this bondage of corruption into the 
glorious liberty of the sons of God!" If it were not for 
that declaration, we might have imagined that sin should 
17 



258 



DEBATE ON 



continue to eternity. But the Scriptures say it shall not. 
But, says Mr. Waller, the Scriptures nowhere speak of 
the deliverance of the wicked from misery. 1 admit, that 
as long as men are wicked, they are miserable; but I have 
seen no proof yet that they are to be endlessly wicked; 
while I have proved that they shall ml remain wicked, or 
miserable. Besides, David was delivered from " the lowest 
Hell." Jonah also, was delivered Li out of Hell," or Hades. 
But Mr. Waller will say that was not I he same place, precise- 
ly, as the one where the Rich Mao was. Well, we have 
proved that even the Rich Man is to be taken out of "Hell." 
We have seen that Death and Lleli {Hades) are to deliver 
up the dead that were in them. (Rev. 20.) Is not that 
sufficient? 

My friend referred to Joe Smith. W T e lay no claim 
to him. Joe Smith was a Partialis!! I have seen the 
Book of Mormon, and it teaches that there are some who 
can never be saved. And Joe Smith is a Baptist, too. 
He insists on immersion. They introduced a controversy 
about it, but the author of the book urged on them the 
positive necessity of immersion. He belongs to ray friend, 
and not to me; though I have heard that lately his preach- 
ers have inclined in favor of restoration; but I dont know 
how that may be. The Book of Mormon has a story about 
the people living long ago, when a savage looking man, of 
dreadful mien and evil disposition, came and to'd ihem 
thai all men would h? saved; and lhat the Fame arguments 
were used against him. as now by Mr. Waller. Finally, 
this " savage" Universalist was driven from the country. 
Joe was not then a Universalist; that is, if he wrote the 
Book of Mormon. As to his subsequent views, 1 dont know 
certa'n'y what they were. 

As to the same terms being used to express the duration 
of puni hmcnt, as are applied to happiness, God, and a fu- 
ture life, I have a few remarks to make. 1 cannot promise 
how fully I shall expose that argument. I will notice it 
here, as far as I have time. If it has come up too late in 
the discussion, to be fairly and fully examined, the fault 
is not mine. As to the term rendered, ''eternal" when 
applied to punishment, etc., Mr. Waller told us, and cor- 
rectly, that the term rendered "eternal" is amnios; and 
he claims that there is no stronger term in the Greek lan- 
guage to express endless duration than that. I have not 



UNIVERSALISM. 



259 



time to go into that question now, philologically. Where 
•do we go to learn the meaning of the word? To the Lex- 
icon? Not for entire authority. But what does that say? 
The Lexicon does not represent it as always meaning end- 
less. .What shall we do then? Take the Bible, and see how 
the term is used there. If it always means unlimited du- 
ration, then i give up the point; and if there are no cir- 
cumstances to show a limited sense, when applied to pun- 
ishment. The whole system of Universalism is fa!se s of 
course, if the term in that connection means endless. 

Scripture says we shall I33 finally delivered from the 
bondage of corruption. But says Mr. Waller, the same 
term that expresses the duration of punishment, is applied 
to the duration of God; and our argument, therefore, de- 
thrones God, and causes the happiness of the righteous to 
cease! The word is sometimes applied to objects of limit- 
ed, and sometimes to objects of unlimited duration. This 
I Shave shown. So the word, "never;" and the phrase, 
u forever and evsri" These terms are only variations of 
the same word- — aion, and aionios, as affected by being 
associated with prepositions, or adjectives, etc. 

Mr. Waller will admit that they are all somzlimzs used ' 
in a limited sense.. This is all we claim. For all is ad- 
mitted, if this be admitted. What then? Do you not 
claim that it can not. mean endless, when applied to pun- 
ishment? Not we. If the word be admitted to be once 
used to mean less than endless, it follows that the word 
translated 44 eternal,' 1 does not necessarily prove endless 
punishment. I say, not necessarily. So much for the 
words. 

Then we prove by oilier means, that punishment is lim- 
ited; — as from the nature of God, etc. All we are bound to 
do, is to prove the fact that the words sometimes are lim- 
ited; and this Mr. Waller will not venture to deny. 

I trust I am understood. I only deny that the words 
must necessarily mean endless. I suppose he will in- 
sist that they do. But apply the same argument to 
him, in this way. Suppose a Jew comes and says t© 
Mi*. Waller, Jesus Christ was an impostor; and I can 
prove it. How do you prove it? Why, in this way. God 
gave to Moses, our lawgiver, an "everlasting statute." 
He said that the offerings by the Priests once a year, 
should continue forever. But Jesus Christ put awiy 
these statutes and offerings, which God said shou'd last for* 



260 



DEBATE ON 



ever. He has abrogated the statutes, and set aside the 
priesthood of Aaron, and established a new priesthood, 
after the order of Melchizedec. He contradicts the pro- 
mises of Almighty God. You must come back to the fold 
of Judaism. 1 olfer you an opportunity to return to the 
Jewish religion. Regard the preaching of Jesus as that 
of an impostor. 

What would Mr. Waller say to the Jew? What 
could he say. but what I or any body would say as. to 
the words, "everlasting," etc? He may get over the dif- 
ficulty as he best can. But he cannot; for I know not 
what he could say to an argument like that, except to 
adopt the argument I use here — that the meaning of the 
words is limited, — that it was the design of God that 
such things should come to an end. But we have 
the authority of God for the fact that it was to be 
everlasting ; and thus the Jew would say, you de- 
throne God, and destroy heaven ! ! It stops the hap- 
piness of i he righteous ; for the same word, " ever- 
lasting," is applied to both. What could Mr. Waller say 
to that? I will take the position of the Jew now, for ar- 
gument's sake, and I would like to hear his answer. 
Come, Sir, what will you do with this argument? How 
will you show that Christ is not an arrant impostor in ab- 
rogating a priesthood that God said should be everlasting? 

I have given reasons for the propriety of punishment 
in this life — remedial punishment. 

Has Mr. Waller given reasons to show the propriety 
of endless punishment? 

Not one. He represents that if it is good for man to 
be punished here, it may be so to all eternity. But there 
is no " afterwards," to endless misery, as there is to the 
punishments which God really inflicts. Therefore, it can- 
not be for their gocd. If it were limited, it would have a 
meaning; if unlimited, none. There is no propriety in 
arguing thus. 

He next talks about relieving my agony, and my being 
mistaken in his views of punishment. Whether this be 
so or not, you all know whether I have made any mistake 
about the common opinion, as to endless punishment. 

He next argues that punishment is just. Let him 
prove the justice of endless misery, and then he may say 
in regard to it, what he says about its goodness, etc. I 
admit the justness of the punishment of sin, because sin 



UNIVERSA L ISM . 



261 



is contrary to God's law; but endless misery is unjust — 
monstrously unjust. There is a great difference between 
" punishment being just, 1 ' and endless torture being just; 
a very great difference. We do not, cannot deserve that. 

Universal salvation does not depend on the pardon of 
sin, in the sense he gave it, as Mr. Waller seems to inti- 
mate, ft only teaches that men do not deserve a punish- 
ment so cruel! Perhaps in the first sin, a man is cut off. 
Does he for this deserve endless damnation? No! No 
man will say he does. Yet that is a consequence of the 
common doctrine. 

Mr. Waller has again attempted to ridicule the idea of 
our being punished, and then forgiven. He compares it 
to a creditor forgiving a debt, after it is all paid. Apply 
this to his own doctrine: Jesus Christ suffered our punish- 
ment. The debt is paid. Yet we are made to pay it 
again! That is worse than punishing and forgiving; it is 
punishing twice, and not forgiving at all! But in refer- 
ence to our views, I have shown that in the Bible the word 
" Forgiveness," is not used in the legal sense, but as the 
taking away of our sins. Says John the Baptist, " Behold 
the Lamb of God, who taketli away the sin of the world." 
This is forgiveness, in the Scripture signification of that 
word. 

The common statement of the doctrine is that Christ 
took our punishment. Now where are we informed that 
he suffered endless damnation? which is said to be our 
punishment. Where is it? If he did take our punish- 
ment, why are we still to suffer it? We shall all escape 
it; so that universal salvation does not depend on this idea 
of the punishment first, and forgiveness after, of sins. In 
one case or the other, the doctrine is equally established. 

But we are saved entirely by grace. What then be- 
comes of all the argument for works and rewards! 

Mr. Waller. I say there must be good deeds. 

Mr. Pingree. Good deeds would make but little dif- 
ference upon his theory. He said there were none that 
do good, and that sin does oppose the law of God, and 
Jesus Christ said " not one jot nor one tittle of the law 
should pass away." All this is correct. It is what we say, 
and we say that all must be brought to obey the law of God. 
There will be universal salvation, because sin is opposed 
to the laws of God, which stand and triumph, and all will 



DEBATE ON 



be brought to obey, through the grace of God. Is there 
punishment for him who comes to God? Does he not say 
that God pardons all who come to him, if they take the 
proper course? Well, we prove that all will finally come 
to God, or to Christ, and so be saved. 

Now he says that sin injures others, besides the sinner, 
and therefore ought to be punished. So say we. There- 
fore, also, all the sins of all sinners must be pun'shed. 

Mr. Waller. My position was that sin injured others, 
and therefore it was jusjt to punish it. 

Mr. Pingree. Then I say that if just, all shivers are 
to be punished for every sin, and all men sin. Therefore, 
all men are to be endless'y punished. This again is uni- 
versal damnation ! But to punish seme, and let others 
go free; is that just? But he has a way of escape for 
some. This is the difference. 

He says sin is punished for an example to others. Not 
to others living here, certainly! Sodom and Gomorrah 
were overthrown lor an " example" to them that should 
come after. But how can their future punishment after 
ihe general Judgment, be an example to those living 
here? The example as applied to future punishment 
comes too late, evcrladivg'y too late. \\ ho is influenced 
by that example here? Nobody sees it — it affords no ex- 
ample. Bui the punishment of Sodom, it is said, is put 
off till after the general judgment. Oh! the influence by 
the example is then to be felt in other worlds. Then hu- 
man creatures, — God's children — are bound to fill Hell for 
the benefit of other beings! — to keep the angels, perhaps 
from sinning! — to keep saints from sinning hereafter! — 
Does that look like a Being of Justice, and Wisdom, and 
Goodness? 

Suppose a State should not punish its criminals till the 
final winding up of its affairs, and after all its membera 
had passed away. The example would come too late; 
would it not? So in this case. Endless misery hereafter 
affords no u example.*' It comes too late. 

He says punishment is not arbitrary, but just; and the 
unavoidable result of sin. God necessarily punishes sin, 
Here again then is universal damnation; for all do sin, 
If punishment is unavoidable, then all must go to Hell for* 
ever, if that is the proper and necessary punishment. 

That is what we say — that punishment is not arbitrary; 



UNIVERSAL1SM. 



263 



and yet God says he " will by no means clear the guilty." 
Hence punishment must be limited, and suffered; or else 
we have final, endless, universal damnation! 

He says he has not denied free agency. He gives an 
illustration to show that he does believe in free agency. 
In reply, I ask. is the murderer allowed to repent in Hell? 
even though he wants to? Is he willing to be punished 
there? If willing to repent, it is most likely he would be 
willing while suffering. Is this allowed? I ask, will he 
be allowed to repent? Has he the privilege to rcpznt and 
love God hereafter? No! says Partial ism. This is worse 
than the penitentiary. For governors allow men to re- 
pent. But the penitentiary of which the Devil is sheriff, 
or turnkey, allows no repentance. They must sin on to 
all eternity! says Partialism, with all its boasted free 
agency. 

He says the love of God was manifested in sending his 
Son Jesus. How many people did he love in giving his 
Son to die for them? I answer, all — he is impartial — he 
died for all. No: he died for a paltry few! say Mr. Wal- 
ler and other Partial ists. Look at the mass of mankind. 
What have they heard of the Gospel and of salvation? 
Nothing. What evidence have they of God's love? Pagans 
— blind idolators cannot, choose the offered mercy of God; 
for it is not offered to them. Do they go to Hell? Can 
they help it? What though they cry to God for mercy — 
can they be saved? No: though they prostrate themselves 
on the earth, and cry to all eternity, they CANNOT be 
saved! Is there any free agency there? Are they free 
to embrace God's terms, and be baptized, and saved? ARE 
THEf FREE? They have no such freedom. Mark it, 
forget it not; and let us hear no more about this free 
agency. 

He says I dont know his views about vicarious atone- 
ment. 1 dont want to know them. It is enough to say 
that Christ suffered in the rocm and stead of man. I am 
taunted with ignorance; but if I know enough to see what 
concerns this discussion, it is all I want at present. 

He says he belongs to the school of Jesus. Yet on the 
first day of the debate, when I referred to that school, he did 
not follow his Master's example: he appealed to the " mass of 
mankind" to decide this question. Here is an inconsistency. 
My friend comes now to the school in which I have endea- 



264 



DEBATE ON 



vored. I hope in God we may both come to it ! and there learn 
the. true wisdom. Can the Pagans come to Christ? that's 
the question now. In all past ages, how many millions of 
Pagans have lived! Can they come? are they free to come? 
No: if they are thus brought into this world by God, and 
driven through it into Hell, without the least chance of 
escaping it, God is not just. They have no such opportu- 
nity. They have not this freedom, according to Partial- 
ism. He now says expressly there must be a moral 
change, or the sinner in this world cannot be happy here- 
after. What is the man about? I am perfectly astonish- 
ed; after arguing for the happiness of the wicked, and the 
unhappiness of the righteous, as he has throughout this 
discussion. If sin makes men happy here, it may make 
them so to all eternity, and the doctrine of endless misery 
is a perfect humbug! Why change, if sufficiently happy 
in sin? Let him be happy still, and forever, even in Hell! 
He has taken a club to beat his own brains out! He now 
virtually admits that the sinful man will be eternally hap- 
py; and then he says he must experience a moral change 
before he can be happy in the next world; but that is what 
we say. He must be reconciled to God — raised in Christ; 
— all must experience this change; but while wicked, we 
suffer nothing but death, misery, damnation, and wretch- 
edness. 

[mr. waller's eleventh speech.] 
I shall have to trust a good deal to the common sense of 
the audience in this discussion. There are some things 
in the last speech that 1 presume you all will decide do 
not merit my attention, especially to the neglect of many 
important matters I have yet in reserve, some of which I 
shall be compelled to omit, for want of time. Especially 
must I trust to you the correction of his misrepresenta- 
tions. What he told you I was about to say in the conclu- 
sion of my last speech, when I was stopped by the expira- 
tion of my time, was all imaginary. He has put words 
into my mouth, and seems more at his ease, in replying to 
what he would have me say, than to what I do say. I was 
about to say, when interrupted, that man could not be hap- 
py in the world to come without a change, wrought in 
grace through the righteousness of faith in this world; 
and he supposes that I was going to say, and argues as if 
I did say, they could not be happy in this life without a 



universalis:*. 



265 



moral change; and that having such a change they would 
be happy! 

He wishes that Mr. Ballou were here to defend himself! 
I would have no objection — not the slightest. What 1 have 
said is stereotyped, / neither seek nor decline controversy 
with a respectable individual. If Mr. Pingree thinks that 
Universal ism will fare better in other hands than his own, 
he can easily know where I am to be found. His wishes 
will be gratified. 

It is a principle admitted by all expert Biblical critics, 
that the common sense interpretation of the Bible is the 
true sense — that the sense which is naturally and readily 
suggested to a plain, unsophisticated, yet strong minded 
and intelligent man, is generally the true sense. All writ- 
ers say that this is the best rule of interpretation. Now 
apply this rule, at your leisure, to the 9th chapter of He- 
brews, last two verses — " And as it is appointed unto men 
once to die. but after this the judgment, so Christ icas once 
offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for 
him shall he appear a secmd time without sin unto salvation. ? * 
Mr. Ballou's interpretation of this passage has more good 
sense in it, than lhat of any other Universalist's which has 
fallen under my observation. He says that the "Judg- 
ment" which follows death is the execution of the sen- 
tence, ''Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. M 
But Mr. Ballou cannot keep up with his followers. Mr. 
Pingi'ee far outstrips him. He has become greater than 
his master. He foliows the author of the " Pro and Con 
of Universal ism. " He commends this book to you as the 
very best of productions. I recommend you to study the 
Bible, as decidedly preferable to the " Pro and Con of Uni- 
versalism.-' 

Mr. Pingree. I said it was among the best books on 
Universalism. 

Mr. Waller. I grant it teaches that doctrine much 
more clearly than the Bible, which does not teach it at all. 
Still I insist you had better study the Bible. But to Mr. 
Pingree's interpretation of this passage, which he has bor- 
rowed of the Pro and Con of Universalism.*'' The 'men,' 
says he, are the High Priests, who die by killing a sheep 
or a goat for the sacrifice! And after thus dying, or rath- 
er committing suicide by proxy, they put on the breast- 
plate and go into the most holy place; and as this breast- 



266 



DEBATE ON 



plate, among other words, had that of " Judgment"' written 
upon it, the putting on of this breast-plate is the judgment 
mentioned by the Apostle!!'. Then the passage means, 
according to this most lucid exposition, "And as it is ap- 
pointed unto the High Priests once to die, by killing a sheep 
or a goat, but after this the putting on of the or east p. 'ale 
so Christ was once ottered," etc! I feel I should insult 
you to offer one word of comment upon such an interpre- 
tation. Suffice it to say, its far-fetched and extraordina- 
ry character shows conclusively that this text is a moun- 
tain in the way of Universal ism — that its plain and obvi- 
ous sense subverts the whole system. And when was this 
interpretation invented? Why since the year 1818! Bal- 
lou himself could not discover it. It is the work of des- 
peration. Indeed, it is a virtual surrender, for when a 
man has to outrage common sense and every principle of 
interpretation to sustain him in an argument, it is because 
his a#Airs are in the worst possible condition, and. he feels 
that only a death struggle can save him. Hence he makes 
one desperate' leap, it is from truth into the dark abyss of 
absurdity! t So the Jews in their madness threw them* 
selves into their burning temple. 

But Mr. Pingree seems to think, that after all, the pas- 
sage did not prove any thing for me, inasmuch as it was 
not said, after do ith, the damnation, but the Judgment. I 
quoted it to prove the judgment. No one ever supposed 
that all would be damned after death, but that all would be 
judged. This the text proves, and it is all that I quoted it 
to prove. This is quite sufficient to subvert the very 
foundations of Unive rsalism. 

I should be glad if Mr. Pingree would more specifically 
give us his views respecting the reward of the righteous. 
He says that it is in this world; and that their sufferings are 
all for their good. But the wicked suffer for the same pur- 
pose. The declaration, that these light afflictions which 
are for a moment, work for us a far more exceeding and 
eternal weight of glory," must, according to this theory, 
be applied to this life, aye, and this also applies to the 
wicked, since all their punishment is for their good; and 
since the gentleman insists that they suffer more than the 
righteous, of course more "exceeding and eternal" will 
be the weight of I heir glory! 

Mr. Pingree complains that I brought the term aicnios 



UNIVEESALISM. 



267 



too late into the discussion. Well, why did he not intro- 
duce it sooner. Ibrought it forward on yesterday, and this 
was the earliest possible period that I could. I have used 
all the dispatch in my power. 1 have never debated witli 
any one before who has held out so many signals of dis- 
tress as my present opponent. He has scarcely made a 
speech that he has not uttered some distressing complaint! 
I am sorry that he is so sensitive and feels so much pain. 
But my conscience tells me that the fault is not mine. I 
am satisfied that he has had, and still has ample time to 
meet this branch of the subject, if it can be met. The 
want of time is a poor excuse. He has as much time as 
myself. And it appears he did have time; for he attempt- 
ed a reply. He admits that aionios, in the New Testa- 
ment, always means eternal, except when applied to pun- 
ishment! He doss not pretend to deny but that it is transla- 
ted eternal even in that connection, or that all scholars and 
translators understand it to mean eternal. If it does not 
mean eternal when applied to punishment, it devolves on 
him to show it. That it may be used sometimes in a lim- 
ited sense, will not serve his purpose; he is to show that 
it must be used in such a sense when applied to punish- 
ment. Has he done this? Far from it; for he has at- 
tempted nothing of the kind. His utmost effort is to prove 
that as punishment is disciplinary, and as God is willing 
that all should be saved, therefore, punishment is not eter- 
nal; and the word aionios does not mean everlasting!-— 
This is arguing in a circle. He proves that punishment 
is not eternal by Universalism; and then proves Univers- 
alism by the fact that punishment is not eternal! So the 
Papists prove the infallibility of their Church by tradition, 
and prove tradition by the infallibility of their Church. 
He has conceded that the common meaning of this word is 
endless. To deny this was more than even the impudent 
spirit of Universalism durst prompt him to do. The rule 
of interpretation which must apply in this case is, that 
the common meaning of a word is its meaning every 
where, unless the context shows that it must have another 
sense — the literal meaning of a word must never be de* 
parled from unless necessity compels. Has he brought 
the doctrine of punishment under these conditions? Ha;* 
he showed from the context that aicnios cannot have ifcj 
literal and common meaning? He has attempted nothing 



268 



DEBATE ON 



of the kind. He has gone off to other places and other 
usages. All that he has said avails nothing — is worse 
than chaff. It does not meet the case. I repeat, he must 
show the necessity for departing from the common mean- 
ing of this word when applied to punishment, this must be 
done by showing that punishment cannot be eternal; a 
work, which as far as I know, has not been undertaken by 
any one; for that, as well as anything else, may be eter- 
nal for ought we can show to the contrary. And if it may 
be eternal, then this word must have its usual and literal 
meaning. 

This word may be applied to limited objects. Mr. Pin- 
gree has referred to instances where it is so applied. But 
this by no means proves that it is used in a limited sense. 
Adjectives qualify nouns, but nouns never qualify adject- 
ives. When, for example, we say that a man is an endless 
talker, it is not the adjective endless which we limit or 
qualify; it means just as much here as in any other con- 
nection, but it is the noun talker that is affected: and thus 
the expression is considered hyperbolical. Thus too, when 
the lover speaks of the angelic beauty of his fair one: it 
is his object *■* to raise a mortal to the skies," and not "to 
drag an angel down." The adjective is not affected at ail 
in its signification by such usage. The angels are not 
disparaged, but the lady is greatly flattered. This applies 
to aionios: it may be used in reference to a limited object, 
but never in a limited sense. The Scriptures then liter- 
ally assert, that the punishment of the wicked is eternal — 
is endless: Now Mr. Pingree must set aside the literal 
sense of the Bible, or his doctrine is ruined. He must 
show the language to be figurative or hyperbolical. This 
is what lies before him, and I trust he will meet it fairly, 
and if so, I know he must forever abandon the system he 
now defends. The Bible plainly and literally declares 
that punishment is eternal; this is conceded, it cannot be 
denied. My opponent has assumed to set aside the plain 
letter of revelation, and how? By showing an "evident 
reason or necessity" for deserting the literal meaning? He 
has done nothing of the kind — it is what he never can do. 
When he makes the effort, I will show by the same reason 
and necessity, that the happiness of the righteous, nor the 
throne of the Almighty, is eternal. I humbly conceive, as 
T have before intimated, that this settles the controversy* 



UNIVERSALISM. 



269 



There was another position taken by Mr. Pingree, which 
claims attention. I saw the same idea set forth in the 
" Star in the West," and will read it as presented in that 
paper. My opponent, who is assistant editor of that paper, 
quotes the following anecdote: 

"Universalism. — There was, sometime since, a man pass- 
ing through the State of North Carolina, calling himself a 
preacher. On a certain night he preached a sermon at 

; on which occasion, among his auditors there was a 

certain old German. After sermon, the German request- 
ed to speak to the preacher a few words in private. His 
reverence politely complying, when the old man addressed 
him as follows : 

" Is de doctrine you breach here to night true?" "Cer- 
tainly true;" replied his gravity. " Vel ten," rejoined the 
German, " pe sure you must keep it a secret from Chake 
Tavis." " Why so?" inquired the preacher. " Pecause," 
said the old man, " Chake Tavis has stole one-half of my 
smit tools already; and if he finds out dare ish no hell or 
punishment, pe sure he will come and steal te palauce." 

Upon this anecdote Mr. Pingree thus comments : — 

" Now all that is necessary to be said in relation to this ' 
anecdote, is, that it is admitted that Schake stole half of 
the Dutchman's 'smit tools,' while a Partialist — believing, 
doubtless, with all of that class, that he could steal, and 
even murder, and repent, and go to heaven, escaping all 
punishment. And if Universalism had been taught him, 
he would not have stolen any more; but if not, he has 
probably stolen ' te palance' before this time. The anec- 
dote only shows the mistake and ignorance of the German 
in relation to the legitimate influence of Universalism — 
hence his most foolish remark, now endorsed and retailed 
by the Editors of the 'Lutheran Observer,' and 'Baptist 
Banner.' 

" Apropos to this, while dealing in anecdotes, I have 
heard one in substance as follows: A man was caught in 
the act of theft — stealing, I believe, a bundle of hay. 
The person who saw him, told him that he would pay for 
that at the day of judgment. 'Well,' observed the thief, 
' if I can have as long credit as that, Ttl take another bun- 
dle!'' — probably believing he could comply with certain 
4 conditions' prescribed by a Partialist church, before death, 
and so not have to pay either at the day of judgment. 



270 



DERATE ON 



" If the Editor of the 'Baptist Banner' proposes to over- 
throw Universalism by means of anecdotes, will he have 
the kindness to copy this article into his paper?" 

The point of these remarks is, that our doctrine tends 
to immorality, because we preach that sinners do not meet 
with full and adequate punishment for their sins in this 
world; but that they will, unless they repent, be punished 
in hell. Now these are strange conclusions. What if 
we do preach that sinners are not fully punished until in 
eternity, does that destroy the hell of Universalism? Are 
we not told, that there is and that there can be no escape 
from a full and adequate punishment for sin? Did not the 
man who stole the smith's tools, and the one who stole the 
bundle of hay experience all the fires of the Universal ist's 
hell? Most certainly, if there is any truth in the system; 
for it teaches that there can be no escape from therm How 
then could Mr. Pingree say in relation to one of these in- 
dividuals, " If Universalism had been taught him, he would 
not have stolen any more'!'' What does it signify whe- 
ther it was taught him or not? Would he be understood 
to mean that ignorance extinguishes the flames of his per- 
dition? Or that a man might; suffer full and adequate pun- 
ishment for his crimes, and not experience pain? That 
while he is writhing in anguish, he will experience no 
pain, because he is taught that there is a terrible retribu- 
tion in the world to come? This i3 to dispute all experi- 
ence and to deride all facts. 

,s Who can hold a fire in his hand, 

By thinking on the frosty Caucasus? 

Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite, 

By bare imagination of a feast? 

Or wallow naked in December snow, 

By thinking on fantastic Summer's heat? 

O,iio ! the apprriLcnsion of tk- good, 

Gives but the greater feeling of the worse " 

Philosophically speaking, then, our doctrine would but 
fan the fires of the Universalist hell. How then, I demand, 
if there is any virtue in their system, do we hinder its 
operation? 

But let us suppose that Universalism had been taught 
ihe fellow who stole the hay, and let Mr. Pingree have been 
his teacher. " My dear fellow," methinks I hear my bland 
and amiable friend say to him, " you are now suffering tb« 



D N 1. V E R S A L I S M . 



271 



torments of hell. There is no hell in the next world, — 
no judgment seat there. You now endure the penalty for 
the crime you have committed in taking that hay; and if 
you take any more, you may at last become callous in 
conscience, and feel no compunction for any crime you 
may commit; and "this moral insensibility is itself a pun- 
ishment — the greatest of punishments/' But all this suf- 
fering which you now, and will, experience for your sin, 
will work for you a far more exceeding and eternal weight 
of glory !" Surely, such a speech, unless the man was 
dead to his own welfare, would induce him to steal — not 
another bundle — but a whole stack of hay! If telling a 
man that he will be punished in a coming day, tends to 
immorality, what must telling him that he will enjoy gtory 
and happiness at that time, lead him to perform? Can 
folly itself subscribe to the position, that a belief in future 
punishment induces men to transgress, more than a belief 
in certain future happiness? 

I am not disposed to let the matter stop here. The ar- 
gument of Mr. P'ngree. is, in effect, that the punishment 
for sin contended for by Universalis s. is wholly inadequate 
to prevent crime. These anecdotes, as embellished by 
himself, conclusively prove it. The two villains mention- 
ed, feeling all the horrors of Li.iversalist perdition, went 
on in crime. That hell necessarily burns in the bosom of 
every transgressor, Mr. Pingree being witness. These 
men felt its fires, but were undeterred. Of c ours 2 Uni- 
versalism could not restrain them; and Mr. Pingree pro- 
poses to stop their career, not by holding up mora punish- 
ment, (which he admits too must exist to prevent crime,) 
but the everlasting happiness of heaven \\\ Never wa:s the 
human mind before insulted by the presentation of a sys- 
tem of ethics so monstrous and absurd I 

?vJl\ Pingree, in the article read from the "Star in the 
West," argues as if we removed the Universaiist's tor- 
ments of hell, and yet he has more than once insisted in 
this debate, as fundamental to his system, that we might 
as well think of hurling the Almighty from his throne, as 
•to endeavor to save the sinner from full and adequate 
punishment for his sins. Then his charge of immorality 
amounts to this: That we preach future punishment, and 
the sinner endures temporal punishment; when we ought 
to preach temporal punishment and future happiness!! 



£72 



DEBATE ON 



Such logic needs only to be mentioned, in order to be des- 
pised. 

1 will now return to the argument of my last speech. 
When I sat down, I was showing that punishment is not 
arbitrarily inflicted, nor is it for the gratification of any 
revengeful feelings, but is the inevitable result of sin, and 
inflicted from the necessity of (he case. 

God is under no obligation to save sinners. He might, 
without the violation of any principle of his nature, have 
left men without the hope of salvation. And had not Je- 
sus come into the world, men must have remained lost 
and undone. His is the only name given under Heaven 
among men whereby we must be saved. Unless as urged 
before, it can be shown that we of right might demand 
the death of the Son of God for our salvation, then we 
might justly have been left in sin, to reap the bitler fruits 
consequent upon it. Our salvation being of pure grace, 
without the slightest worth or merit on our part, might in 
perfect righteousness, have been withheld. 

Besides, men as sinners, are unfit for Heaven and do not 
want to go there, and it would be inflicting a punishment 
on them if sent there without a change of their moral be- 
ing. I grant they do not want to be punished, and that 
they want to be happy, but they do not want to give up 
their sins, they do not want holiness without which none 
can see God, and none can be happy. His conduct proves 
that he does not want to go to Heaven, the holy habitation 
of God, of angels, and of the spirits of the just made per- 
fect; and to take him there would be a violation of his will, 
and would make him miserable. He cannot enjoy the so- 
ciety of religious people here. Even the conversation of 
a pious mother, or father, or sister, or brother, or wife, is 
exceedingly disagreeable to him — he always shuns it — his 
affections are set upon the things of earth. He is earth- 
ly, sensual, devilish, in the temper and disposition of his 
mind. His whole moral being is opposed to God — he hates 
what God loves, and loves what God hates. A thorough, 
radical moral change must be effected in him then, or he 
cannot be happy in Heaven. If he cannot talk with pleas- 
ure about religion here for a few moments with his best 
friends and nearest relations, how could he relish an eter- 
nity of such conversation? And there he would fi:;d no- 
thing to his taste — he would be consumed with desires 



CNIYEESALISM. 



273 



never to be satisfied— he would hunger and thirst after 
pleasure that he could never enjoy. Nothing that his 
heart delighted in, and every thing that his heart loathed, 
would be there. 

God would be there. He would stand in his dread pres- 
ence without a veil between, and his heart would be en- 
mity against God. Jesus would be there, King of kings, 
and Lord of lords; and he would not have Christ Jesus to 
reign over him. Heaven is lighted with glory and truth; 
but the sinner loves darkness rather than light, because 
his deeds are evil. The delights of the blessed are right- 
eousness and holiness: but he takes pleasure in unright- 
eousness, and rolls sin under his tongue as a sweet morsel. 
The law of God, which is holy, just and good, pertains 
there: but he is carnal, sold under sin. In a word, if tak- 
en to Heaven, the sinner would be denied every delight of 
his heart, in a place wholly unsuited to his taste, with no 
other society but such as he loaths, governed by one he 
hates, burthened by a law he despises, and far away from 
every object he esteems essential to his happiness. He 
would writhe in eternal torment, and Heaven would be 
Hell to him. 

Now is God bound to change men — to give them new 
natures and new moral beings? Will Mr. Pingree ven- 
ture upon a position so monstrous? Will he dare say that 
God is under obligations to make a man fit for Heaven, 
although he desires nothing of the sort? Unless he as 
sumes this, let him cease to complain of the hardship of 
punishment: because the sinner could be placed no where 
in the universe where he could be happy. If left in sin, 
where he wants to be left, he is in misery: if taken to 
Heaven, where he does not want to be, I have demonstrat- 
ed that he would be a wretched, miserable, desolate being. 
His punishment then arises in the nature of the case; il 
is an inevitable consequence of the course he has chosen. 
He plucks down ruin upon his own head. 

Mr. Pingree mistook my positions respecting Hades! I 
deem it a waste of time to recapitulate them. Suffice it 
to say, that I showed that although hades did not necessa- 
rily imply torment, yet it w r as some times used in that 
sense; and that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus 
proved it beyond question. Mr. Pingree's efforts at ridi- 
cule on this parable, his facetious allusions to the water, 
18 



274 



DEBATE ON 



finger, Abraham's bosom, etc., recoiled upon himself. Be- 
fore an audience accustomed to look upon the Bible res- 
pectfully, he should handle such subjects with some de- 
gree of delicacy. The Bible speaks of Jehovah himself 
fts possessed of the parts of a man. The divine writers 
were obliged to use the language of earth to convey ideas 
of heaven. The word paradise means a Jlower garden, 
heaven means, the air. This every scholar knows. The 
words house, city, temple, Canaan, etc., are used with ref- 
erence to the abodes of the blessed. Ail his ridicule 
against this parable applies with equal force against God, 
and Heaven, or rather against the Bible. Admit thai 
there is the weight of a feather in his criticisms, and the 
entire book of God must be discarded as worse than old 
wive's fables! Such matters are edged tools, and he 
ought to handle them, carefully; unskilful use of them 
may injure Christianity itself, more than they will benefit 
bis cause. 

I now proceed to redeem my promise respecting the 
word Gehenna. If the real meaning of paradise is " flow- 
er garden," and of heaven is "air," so the primary mean- 
ing of Gehenna is the " Valley of the son of Hinnom, 
which is by the entry of the east gate" of Jerusalem. 
( Jer. xix. 2.) Here the Jews in the days of their degen- 
eracy burnt incense unto false gods, and built also the high 
places of Baal, and burnt their sons and daughters in sac- 
rifice to idols; and it is called Tophet because they beat 
drums and timbrels that the shrieks of the infants might 
not be heard by the parents: (Jeivvi-i. 31.) Josiah destroyed 
this horrible worship: ( 2 Kings, xxiii. 10. ) Some writers 
say that, in after time, it was used as a receptacle of the 
carcasses of beasts which died in the city, which were 
burnt there. Now where on earth could a more appropri- 
ate type of Bell be found than this; and if a "flower gar- 
den" was selected as suitable to convey an idea of Heav- 
en, surely this loathsome vale might convey a very appro- 
priate idea of perdition. Certain it is that in the days of 
ihe Savior it was used by the Jews in the sense of what, we 
now mean by HcV. If the gentleman denies this (as I 
presume he will not) I am prepared to show that it was 
used in that sense by all the Jews in the days of the Sa- 
vior. The Jewish commentators,Uosephus, and all bibli- 
cal scholars of any note attest this fact. But I repeat, I 



UN2VERSALISM. 



276 



4o not suppose it will be disputed. This being the mean- 
ing of the word in the days of the Savior, let us examine 
his usage of it, and see if he gave another sense to it. 

Matt. v. 22: " But whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall 
be in danger of Hell fire" — Gehenna fire. Now those to 
whom he spoke understood by Gehenna fire just what we 
mean by "Hell fire;" how then must they have under- 
stood him? Did he intend to mislead them? Did he use 
their own language? If not, what language did he use? 
There was no fire then kept in the vale of Hinnom. No 
one had a right a burn them there. For him to tell them 
that they were in danger of the fire in the valley of Hin- 
nom, would have been ridiculous nonsense. 

Matt. v. 29, 30: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it 
out and cast it from thee, for it is more profitable for thee 
that one of thy members should perish, and not that 
thy whole body should be cast into Hell. And if thy right 
hand offend thee, cut it off. and cast it from thee, for it is 
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, 
and not that thy whole body should be cast into Help' — 
Gehenna. 

Mark ix. 43 — 48: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it 
off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than 
having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never 
shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not and the 
fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it 
off; it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than hav- 
ing two feet to be cast into Hell, into the fire that never 
shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the 
fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck 
it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of 
God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into 
Hell, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not 
quenched.'" 

Matt, xviii. 9: "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, 
©nd cast it from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life 
with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into 
Hell fire." In the verse above, the language is, " Be cast 
into everlasting fire." 

Now what can the Savior mean by Gehenna and Gehenna 
fire, in these exhortations? Not literally the vale of 
Hinnom; for then there could be no meaning to his lan- 
guage. Not the destruction of Jerusalem as some Univers- 



DEBATE ON 



alists suppose, for then no one could have understood hie 
meaning, for the word never was used in that sense. The 
truth is, the exhortation of the Savior corresponds with a 
saying of the Jews; " It is better for thee to be scorched 
with a little fire in this world, than to be burned with a 
devouring flame in the world to come." 

Matt. x. 28 : "And fear not them which kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him which 
is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell." 

Luke xii. 4, 5: " And I say unto you, my friends, be 
not afraid of them that, kill the body, and after that have 
no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom 
you shall fear: Fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath 
power to cast into Hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 

These passages have made our Universalist friends 
travail in great pain. They are reduced to great extrem- 
ities in their efforts to escape their plain and obvious 
sense. The author of the " Plain Guide to Universalism" 
tells us, that the passage in Luke does not say, God will des- 
troy both soul and body in Hell, but it says he is able to do 
so. It describes his ability, not his will, nor his purpose." 
(page 92.) But not satisfied with this, and feeling his con- 
science still burthened, he tries another expedient, and la- 
bors on page 94 to show that the word soul (in the original 
psuche) means mere " animal life," and not the " immortal 
spirit." These are death struggles — the writhings of des- 
pair — the ravings of frenzy. They need not be answer- 
ed. No: these passages prove beyond the power of es- 
cape, that the Universalist exposition of this word is the 
veriest abortion of nonsense. No one was ever destroyed, 
soul and body, in the valley of Hinnom. The Lord nev- 
er destroyed the soul and body of Jew or any one else in 
it, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor before 
or since. And no Jew was burnt there by the Romans 
when Jerusalem was destroyed. The language of our 
Lord in these passages comports precisely with the sense 
attached to Gehenna, by all the Jews of that day, viz: a 
state of torment in the world to come. This meaning 
gives point to his discourse, no other will. And if he was 
speaking in the language of men, and to be understood by 
the men to whom he spoke, he could not have used it in 
any other sense. 

Matt, xxiii. 15: "And when he is made, ye make him 



UNIVERSALISM. 



277 



two fold more the child of Hell than yourselves." Verse 
33; " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye 
escape the damnation of Hell?" 

James iii. 6: " And it is set on fire of Hell." 

I believe I have quoted all the passages where this word 
is used. Now, remember its meaning at that time was a 
state of future punishment; corresponding precisely to the 
common meaning attached now to the English word Hell, 
Do not these passages show that the Savior used it in its 
common acceptation? That was its literal and pre- 
vailing meaning in that day ; and can the slightest reason 
be given why the Savior should have used it in any other 
sense, unless he designed to mislead? If he designed to 
teach temporal punishment merely, why take a word that 
the people were all in the habit of applying to eternal 
punishment? Was the language too barren to furnish a 
Word suited to his purposes, that he must arrest one from 
its common, and force upon it an unusual sense? And if 
he intended to allude to the destruction of Jerusalem, why 
take this word that no man had ever used in that sense, 
and press it into service, when not one of his hearers, if 
all the faculties of their minds had been tortured, could 
have guessed at the idea he designed to convey? Accord- 
ing to Universalism, the Delphic oracle never spoke more 
obscurely than did our Savior! And indeed if they can 
make it appear that he used it in a sense in which it was 
never used by any one except himself, then I may exercise 
my privilege of guessing as well as Universalists, and shall 
insist that not the destruction of Jerusalem was meant; but 
of the Bastile and of Moscow, and I can support my opin- 
ion by as sound criticism as the best of them. I challenge 
Mr. Pingree to put me to the proof. 

But to sum up the matter. Gehenna denotes, in the 
New Testament, a place of punishment. That the Jews 
in the in the days of the Savior, used it in reference to 
future punishment, no man who has any reputation to lose 
as a scholar, will deny, or has ever denied. There is no 
evidence that the valley of Hinnom was used as a place of 
punishment in the times of the Savior and his Apostles. 
Our Savior mentions various persecutions which the disci- 
ples should undergo, but he makes no allusion to their be- 
ing punished by the Jews in the valley of Hinnom. The 
Apostles never once allude to the fact that they had been 



278 



DEBATE ON 



in danger, or that they apprehended the danger, of being 
punished in that place. The Jews never threatened them 
or their master with such a punishment. 

There is no evidence that a perpetual fire was kept up in 
the valley of Hinnom, in the days of our Savior, as the 
Universalists affirm. No writer of that age, or near that 
age mentions any such ihing. And those modern writers 
who conjectured, such was the case, have relied upon Rab- 
bi Kimchi, who flourished about the fourteenth century. 
Neither the Lord nor the Romans destroyed both soul and 
body of the Jews in this valley at the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. No one at that time was burnt there. And neither 
Jews nor Romans were want to burn criminals in the val- 
ley of Hinnom. 

In a word, if Jesus meant to be understood by those to 
whom he spoke — if he used human language at all — he 
could not by Gehenna have meant the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, as the author of the " Pro and Con of Universal- 
ism" affirms; for the word was never used by any one of 
the inhabitants of earth in that sense. But if he used it 
in its then commonly received sense (and we must believe 
he did, or else esteem him a deceiver,) then he meant by 
it all that we mean by the terrible word hell! The al- 
ternative is then presented to you, either of rejecting Uni- 
versalism, or else of discarding the Savior as a deceiver! 

There is one other passage that deserves attention : 2. 
Peter, ii. 4: " God spared not the angels that sinned, but 
cast them down to Hell, and delivered them unto chains of 
darkness, to be reserved unto Judgment." Here the word 
Hell is translated from Tartarus. The author of the 
"Plain Guide to Universalism" very prudently forebore to 
make any comments on this word. And even the intrepid 
author of the "Pro and Con of Universalism" has quailed 
before this passage. He does not allude to it. indeed 
none of the Universalist writers upon whose works I have 
been able to lay my hands, have ventured an explanation. 
The reason is obvious enough. If they know any thing at 
all, they must know that Tartarus can have reference to 
nothing else but future punishment. This is its usage in 
all writers who have occasion to employ it — whether saint 
or sage, poet, historian, or orator. Clearly then Peter 
teaches future punishment; for he used a word, that so f*r 
at known, is never employed in any other sense. 



UN I VERBALISM. 



279 



No marvel then that Jeremiah White, Chaplain to Oli- 
ver Cromwell ; and one of the most able and learned of 
all the advocates of the " ultimate holiness and salvation 
of all men," felt compelled by facts too stubborn to bend, 
to utter this solemn warning to his brethren: — "Let him 

THAT DENIES HELL TAKE HEED LEST IT BE VERIFIED UPON 
HIMSELF. WE HAVE AS MUCH FOR HELL AS WE HAVE FOR 

Heaven!!" (Restoration of all Things, page 27.) I hope 
my friend will profit by the warning. 

[MR. PINGKEE's TWELFTH SPEECH.] ' 

jRespected Friends: — 1 shall first examine, as far as I 
think it necessary, Mr. Waller's last speech of the fore- 
noon. His first remark was upon Hebrews ix. 27, 28; 
and he laid down the maxim that, in interpreting Scrip- 
ture, the common sense interpretation of the passage was 
usually, if not always, the right one. 

1 grant that the common sense interpretation is the right 
one. But we must arrive at the common sense view of a 
passage, frequently, by inquiring into the circumstances 
under which it was spoken, or written, and by true exami- 
nation, gain a knowledge of the subject of it. We must 
look at ihe context, compare it with parallel passages % and 
learn something about the nature of the subject elsewhere, 
before, we can be perfectly certain we have got the right 
meaning of the author. Now in reference to that passage, 
where the word "creature" is used, he pursued a different 
course from the one he now prescribes to me. Though 
he objects to my course, he did the same thing which he 
charges upon me. He was not willing to take the obvious 
meaning of the word creature. He must go to the context, 
and try to show a different meaning; although in this he 
did not succeed. 

He attempts to ridicule my interpretation of Hebrew 
ix. 27, 28; and says the allusion to the breastplate of right- 
eousness, etc., is all fancy and imagination. I appeal to 
you, after what has been said, if the institution of thai 
rite, under the old dispensation, was not typical of the ap- 
pearing of Christ, under the new. 

As to the reward of the wicked and the righteous, did I 
say the wicked could " inherit the kingdom of God?" No; 
I have urged all the time, that they cannot enjoy, if they 
are not righteous, the peace and happiness which the good 



280 



DEBATE ON 



man has. Here is the difference: One is in the kingdom 
of God; the other is out of it,— -in darkness, wretchedness, 
misery, and death. 

He represents me as complaining and being tormented 
about aion, etc. 1 have not complained, nor shown "signs 
of being tormented. I have merely stated the matter of 
fact, that when I introduced passages bearing upon the 
question, he was not willing to attend to them, until I en- 
forced them by comments and showed their bearing upon 
the subject. I merely said that 1 myself should follow his 
example; and I propose to do so, to some extent, at least 
As to his illustration about the argument of the Roman 
Catholic, in a circle, it does not bear on the point. 1 have 
not argued in favor of Universalism from punishment not 
being endless, and then proved that punishment is not 
endless, from Universalism. I have argued in favor of 
universal salvation from the Word of God, and that 
punishment was not endless, from the nature and object of 
punishment. 

He says the ordinary acceptation of Scripture is always 
right. He takes it for granted that the Word rendered 
"eternal," means endless; whichjsthe very point in dispute. 
The context and subject must show the meaning. In the 
24th and 25th of Matthew, the context shows plainly that 
the punishment there spoken of, was in this life — at the 
coming of Jesus Christ in glory, within that generation. 
The context, I say, shows this. In 2 Thessalonians, the 
punishments were to be at the coming of Jesus Christ. 
I have shown the time to be in the life time of some then 
living. The Jews were in captivity for seventy years. 
This was said to be everlasting; and yet it was endured 
only seventy years! See 2 Kings xiii. 22, 23; Jeremiah 
xxix. 10 — 14; and xxiii. 39, 40. All these passages refer 
to the same matter; and illustrate 2 Thessalonians, as to 
the "presence of God," and the limited signification of 
u everlasting,'' when applied to punishment. 

Now we have an admission from my friend here, that 
overthrows the doctrine of endless punishment forever! 
He has once for all surrendered the word everlasting, 
[aionios) as a positive proof of endless punishmenl. That 
is, he has admitted that though the word itself is not lim- 
ited, in signification, yet it is applied to limited things. 
This is all we ask. If it be applied so, no argument can 



UNIVERSALIS^. 



281 



be founded on it which is of any use to prove that punish- 
ment is endless. The argument derived from the force 
of that word is lost, by that admission, forever ! 

I have thought it would have been as well for Mr. Wal- 
ler, considering the circumstances, occupying as he does 
a different position in social life, from myself, to have 
allowed me to show how well I might compliment the fair 
sex upon their "bright eyes," etc.; rather than do it him- 
self. It may do for his amusement, and yours, my friends. 
For myself, I am here to discuss the great question of the 
doom of the human soul, and that for all eternity; and in 
answer to grave arguments, we have illustrations from 
the gentleman's fancy about the bright eyes of women! 
This is for your " amusement," I presume. 

I thank him for his anecdote about the Dutchman. As 
he has commenced anecdote telling, you will allow me to 
relate another, which I heard to-day: A fellow stole a 
number of things, and he who lost them was in trouble, 
lest he should not be punished. Oh 1 said his friend, he 
will be punished hereafter. There is a Hell in store for 
him. Yes, says the man, but curse the follow! I'm afraid 
he'll re-penl! (Great laughter.) I ask pardon for exciting 
laughter — it is merely to show the spirit of the man; and 
the evil consequences of putting far off the evil day. 

Just so in reference to this opinion, if carried out. Still 
he represents that they have superior claims to morality, 
because they have the advantage of all the Hell of this 
life, and another beyond, and endless. Yes; but they are 
deluded with the idea that sin is pleasant here. I want to 
disabuse them of that licentious notion. I want to drive 
that all away. I do not wish them to be deluded any 
longer; but to learn that " there is no peace to the wicked." 

We have an additional idea; that the sinner cannot be 
happy in religious company. Take the sinner with his 
evil inclinations into the world of glory, and he would be 
miserable there, says Mr. Waller. Admitted — while un- 
changed and sinful; but the sinner is to be changed— then 
he can enjoy it; can he not? That is the point. We do 
not say the impenitent sinner could go to heaven and be 
happy. What we contend for, is the ultimate holiness, 
(and happiness consequently) of all men : this is what we 
prove in this discussion. 

But are we not taught by Mr. Waller, that in this world 



282 



DEBATE ON 



the wicked are happy? Why not let them all go to heaven? 
or let them be in Hell, with boon companions? On Mr, 
Waller's theory, they could be very happy. Besides., 
there is the best of society in Hell, according to Partialism> 
—some of the greatest men that ever lived; such as Cicero, 
Demosthenes, Homer, and Plato; and even our own Wash- 
ington and Franklin! If there be no change after death, 
and sinners are so happy here, they would not ask to go 
to heaven: Hell would be heaven to them! Thus Mr. 
Waller himself overthrows the doctrine of endless misery. 
If there be a change after death, they are saved in heaven. 
If no change, they are happy in Hell! So either way, 
we are content. I think he must admit that the happy 
sinner here, will be a happy sinner hereafter; or else ad- 
mit a change af/er death. One or the other he must do. 
1 will now pass on. 

He says the place of Hell is the least consideration in 
this controversy. It would look a little more Orthodox, if 
he were to give it not quite so small a place in his estima- 
tion, it occupies the largest 44 place" in most. Partialis! 
sermons. 

He says I misrepresent his doctrine of Hades. He says 
he did not mean that Hades was a place of torment, but 
the stale in which the dead were put, after the separation 
of the soul from the body. I care not. He admits it is 
not a place of end/ess damnation; and I have proved thai 
it shall be destroyed. 

We next have Tartarus introduced, from the classics y 
to show a pl-ace where the wicked were tormented to eter- 
nity. In view of the facts admitted, that cannot be endless; 
because Death and Hades — and Tartarus is said to be in 
Hades — are to be cast into the lake of fire, and destroyed. 
Abraham's bosom is in Hades too ! and that is cast into 
the kkj of fire, also. I suppose, if all those criticisms are 
adopted by Mr. Waller. This lake of fire, I suppose, is 
Geheunc — the real, final Hell. 

Mr. Waller. 1 do not admit that Hades includes pun- 
ishment necessarily. 

Mr. Pingkee. Then all that parable about the Rich 
Man and Lazarus has nothing whatever to do with the 
discussion; for the argument was entirely founded on that 
idea. 

Mr. Waller, Abraham's bosom is, accordnig to the 



UNIVSfiSALISM. 



283 



Jews, is in Hades. I was giving the different notions that 
prevailed. Josephus says that, the Jews believed in two 
departments for the dead. One was Abraham's bosom, 
and the other Hades, in a bad sense. Hades was a gene- 
ral term for the place of the dead. 

Mr. Pingree. Well, let it pass. It is the same Hades 
in which the Rich Man was; the same Hades that deliver- 
ed up its dead in Revelation; the same Hades that was 
cast into the lake of fire, and the same Hades that the 
Apostle says is to have no victory. That Hades, then, can 
be no evidence of endless punishment; although the whcle 
force of Mr. Waller's argument was in the idea that Christ 
adopted the views of Hell, as expressed by Josephus. 

Gehenna comes next. He says it wns a term used by 
the Jews, to represent a place of fuiure and endless tor- 
ture; and that therefore Jesus Christ used it so. If so, I 
ask as I did before, what is there new in Christianity? 
This shows the knowledge we have of a future life to be 
derived from the Pagans. We are indebted to the Greeks 
and barbarians for our views of the immorlal state. The 
Savior only adopted the terms and ideas he found in use, 
with the meaning of Jews and Pagans attached to them. 
So we derive our knowledge from the Jews and Pagans, 
after all, and not from God or from Jesus Christ! 

All ihe remarks about the destruction of Jerusalem, 
can go for what they are worth. Universalists clo not say 
those passages where Gehenna is found, refer to a literal 
burning in the valley of Hinnoin. It is admitted by the 
Orthodox, that the original meaning of Gehenna, or Hell, 
was this valley of Hinnom. But they say it was changed. 
afterwards to mean a future and endless Hell. Dr. G. 
Campbell and others distinctly admh this. Now the ques- 
tion comes up, who changed the meaning of the word? 
who? God? Jesus Christ? the Prophets? or Apostles? 
No: but uninspired men. 

So with the English word Hell. Two or three hundred 
years ago, when the present translation of the Bible was 
made, it did not. exclusively mean what we mean now by 
it. Professor Stuart will tell you so. Dr. Adam Clarke 
says so; and so Mr. Waller will admit. It is no news to 
him, — this fact respecting the word Hell in English. 

He says the Jews used Gehenna to represent a place of 
endless punishment. The only authority for this, is in the 



284 



DEBATE ON 



Targums. And Horne, who is good authority in refer- 
ence to these Jewish books, says: 

" The Targum of Or.keios: 'The generally received 
opinion is that Onkelos was a proselyte to Judaism, and a 
disciple of the celebrated Rabbi H LI lei, who flourished 
about fifty years before the Christian era; and consequent- 
ly that Onkelos was contemporary with our Savior; Bau- 
er and Jahn, however, place him in the second century.' 
Intro, ii. 159. 

"Tar gam of the Pseudo Jonathan: 4 Learned men are 
unanimously of opinion that this Targum could not have 
been written before the seventh, or even the eighth cen- 
tury.' Ibid. 159. 

"Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel: Some suppose this 
Jonathan to havs lived in the days of Christ, and Wol- 
fius thinks he lived a short time before that period. 
'From the silence of Origen and Jerome concerning this 
Targum, of which they could not but have availed them- 
selves if it had really existed in their time, and also from 
its being cited in the Talmud* both Bauer and Jahn date it 
much later than is generally admitted; the former in- 
deed is of opinion that its true date cannot be ascertained; 
and the latter, from the inequalities of style and method 
observable in it, considers it as a compilation from the in- 
terpretations of several learned men, made about the 
close of the third or fourth century.' " Ibid. 160. 

Then who would place much dependence on that testi- 
mony from the Targums? There is no evidence in the 
Bible. The Old Testament is silent as to it. If so, there 
is no evidence of that usage in the time of Christ. 

While I am about it, 1 will read a quotation from Mac- 
Knight, on this point: 

' Into tlie deep. The word abyssos in this passage sig- 
nifies the place where the wicked spirite are punished; as 
it does likewise Rev. xx. 3, where it is translated the bot- 
tomless pit \ properly it denotes a place without bottom, or 
so deep that it cannot be fathomed. The Greeks describ- 
ed their Tartarus in this manner, and the Jews, when 
they wrote Greek, did not scruple to adopt I heir express- 
ions, because they were universally understood. Besides 
the Hebrew language did not furnish proper words for these 
ideas, which was the reason that the first Christians also, 
when they had occasion to speak of the state of evil spir- 



UN I VER SALI SM . 



285 



its, made use of terms purely Greek, such as Hades, Tar- 
tarosas, &c.' " Har. Evan. sec. 32. 

Thus it is seen that the Hebrew language did not pre- 
sent proper words, to express the future world of woe. 
Hence the Jews borrowed words from the Pagans, to 
represent that idea; and they borrowed the idea too! 

What then is the fact about Gehenna? It is this: It is a 
phrase signifying, crigcnaliy. the valley of Hinnom- — this 
is admitted. But we say it was used figuratively, by Jesus 
Christ, to express the temporal calamities that were to 
befall the Jewish people; — not the mere burning of bodies 
in the valley. And for evidence of this, we quote the 19th 
of Jeremiah. I call your attention to the whole chapter, 
that you may examine it again at ycur leisure. 

Thus saith the Lord, go and get a potters earthen bot- 
tle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the an- 
cients of the priests; and go forth unto the valley of the 
son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, 
and proclaim there the words lhat I shall tell thee. And 
say, hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah, and 
inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, 
the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, 
the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. Be- 
cause they have forsaken me and have estranged this 
place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom 
neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings 
of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of in- 
nocents; they have built also the high places of Baal, to 
burn their sons with fire for burnt-ofTe rings unto Baal, 
which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into 
my mind: therefore, behold, the days come, saith the 
Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor 
the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaugh- 
ter. And 1 will make void the counsel of Judah and Jeru- 
salem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the 
sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that 
seek their lives; and their carcasses will I give to be meat 
for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. 
And 1 will make this city desolate, and a hissing: every 
one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss be- 
cause of ail the plagues thereof. And I wilt cause them to 
eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, 
and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the 



286 



DEBATE OK 



aeige and straitness wherewith their enemies, and they that 
seek their lives, shall straiten them. Then shalt thou 
break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, 
and shalt say unto them, thus saith the Lord of hosts; 
Even so will I break this people and this city, as one break- 
eth a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again: 
and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place 
to bury. Thus will I do Unto this place, saith the Lord, 
and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as 
Tophet: and the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of 
the kings of Judais, shall be denied as the place of To- 
phet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they 
have burned incense unto all the host, of heaven, and 
have poured out drink-offerings unlo other gods. Then 
came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the Lord had sent 
him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the Lord's 
house; and said to all the people, thus saith the Lord of 
.hosts, the God of Israel; Behold 1 will bring upon this city 
and upon ail her towns ail the evil that I have pronounced 
against it, because they have hardened their necks, that 
they might not hear my words." (Jer. 19th. chap.) 

Here Jeremiah went to Tophet, and prophesied, and 
fame up out of it again. Now, at the present time it is 
thought to represent the place of endless damnation. Yet 
Jeremiah went there and came back again! 

Take another passage : Jer. vii. 29 — 34 — to show the 
use of the phrase by the prophet, and then we shall 
have the Savior's language taken from the prophet, un- 
derstood. "Cut off thy hair, O Jerusalem, and cast it 
away, and take up a lamentation on high places; for the 
Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his 
wrath. For the children of Judah have done evil in 
my sight, saith the Lord: they have set their abomina- 
tions in the house which is called by my name, to pol- 
lute it; and they have built the high places of Tophet; 
[then there men built HELL!] which is in the valley of the 
son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in 
the fire, which I commanded them not, neither came it into- 
my heart. Therefore, the days come, saith the Lord, that 
it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the 
son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter; for they shall 
bury in Tophet till there is no place.' 1 Is this the place 
of endless damnation hereafter? 



UNI VERBALISM . 



£37 



Isaiah xxx. 33: " ForTophet is ordained of old; yea for 
the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large, 
the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the 
Lord, like a stream of brimstone doth kindle it." 

Here we have a description of Tophet, and yet it can- 
not be pretended that it here means a place of future dam- 
nation. So much for the origin of Hell, as Tophet, and 
the valley of Hinnom. As to the word Gehenna, he re- 
fers to Balfour's 1st Inquiry, and you will see stated 
there the facts. Gehenna is generally claimed by 
the learned Orthodox, to be the only word meaning their 
Hell. Sheol anil Hades are given up. But they say that 
Gehenna has an emblamatical or symbolical signification; 
and tnis the Partialist's world of woe. This is Dr. Geo. 
Campbell's opinion. It is admitted by several Orthodox 
authors that Gehenna represents other things in the New 
Testament, besides the place of the damned in a future 
life. Some learned Orthodox writers say that Sheol and 
Hades neve a were used to mean Hell, as now understood. 
In addressing the Gentiles, the word Gehenna was nev- 
er used — never. It was only used in addressing the Jews; 
and they only could understand it, because it represented 
punishments relating to them. It is strange, unless it was 
only intended to app'yto that people, that it was never ad- 
dressed to the Gentiles. It is not found in all the apostol- 
ical preaching, as recorded in the Acts. If that be Re- 
word to express a future immortal slate of punishment, it 
is strange they. never used it in speaking to any but Jews. 

Again, neither Sheol, Bades, Tartarus, or Gehenna is 
any where called endless, in Scripture. The future salva- 
tion is no where declared to be salvation from this sort of 
Hell. Salvation now is supposed to be from that; and 
therein the Church differs from Scripture. John the 
Apostle never used the word Gehenna. This is strange, 
if it was the express word for future punishment. I sup- 
pose the reason is, that those books were not addressed 
exclusively to the Jews. Luke does not use it in the Acts. 
This is strange, if it was the word for future punishment. 

Paul never used it in all his sermons or Epistles. Yet he 
says he did not "fail to declare all the counsel of God." 
Hance Gehenna as an endless Hell, is not included in the 
counsel of God, as to the destiny of mankind in general. 
U it not strange that Paul, the great preacher never 



288 



DEBATE ON 



used Gehenna, the word for future and endless punish- 
ment? His preaching was generally to the Gentiles, and 
this word concerned the Jews only. Peter never used it 
in his preaching, or in his Epistles. Jude never used it. 
These are curious facts, now urged on Mr. Waller's atten- 
tion. 

You will recollect, too, that there are four words rend- 
ered Hell; yet that these four words* do not mean the 
same thing; and yet one word, Sheol, is rendered by three 
words, the Grave, Hell, and Pit, and the whole four words 
are supposed to mean the one HELL, by the mass of pro- 
fessed Christians. 1 say this is also a curious fact. 

Again; I do not say it for the learned Orthodox, nor for 
Mr. Waller, but for the benefit of the audience general- 
ly; but it is a fact, that the learned Orthodox have two 
Hells; the common people but one, and that is " Hell," 
as commonly understood by the word in preaching. If you 
ask, what is Hell? they reply Hell is Hell; and that's all 
they know about it. But the learned Orthodox, and Mr. 
Waller, believe in two Hells. 

Mr. Waller. The gentleman is mistaken. 

Mr. Pingree. I say the learned Orthodox do. 

Mr. Waller. No, Sir. 

Mr. Pingree. Why, first, there is Hades, immediately 
after death; and then there is the second Hell, which is 
Gehenna, after the resurrection, and it appears to me as if 
the admissions of Mr. Waller were nearly the same; be- 
cause, has he not said that the Rich Man went to Hades, 
and is not that one Hell? and is it not said that Hades shall 
" deliver up the dead that are in it;" and after that, Hades 
(where the Rich Man was) was cast into the lake of fire; 
and is not that the second Hell? adopting here the com- 
mon interpretation of the " lake of fire." 

It is a fact worth remembering in this connection, (I 
mention it not for Mr. Waller's benefit; he is familiar 
with it, but for those who are listening to the discussion;) 
that it is asserted by Orthodox writers — Rev. Stephen 
Remington, of New York, Dr. Joel Hawes, a writer 
against Universalism, Dr. George Campbell — the Ency- 
clopedia of Religious Knowlege, Greenfield, and others, 
that Tartarus or Gegenna is in Hades. It is commonly 
believed} also, that the lake of fire in Ravelations is in 
Hades, and is the same as Tartarus or Gehenna. See the 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



289 



absurdity: here is Tartarus in Hades, and Gehenna in 
Hades, and Hades delivers up the dead, and is afterwards 
cast into the lake of fire, and the lake of fire is Gehenna. 
Therefore this Hell in Hell is cast into Hell ; that is, it is 
cast into itself! I shall not dwell on this point. I do not 
charge Mr. Waller with holding these absurdities; be- 
cause he now protests against it. Part or all of these no- 
tions are held, however, generally by the learned and 
other Orthodox. 

Let us examine some passages, where the word Gehen- 
na is found in the New Testament. We shall not apply to 
the Targums, whose date is not established. I know of 
no other means of determining its meaning, but the New 
Testament itself. It is true we may appeal to the Old 
Testament for explanation; because Jesus Christ was a 
Jew, and used the word in a similar sense to that of the 
Old Testament. Yet it is necessary to come to the New 
Testament itself, to learn how the Savior used it. 

Take this passage, Matt. v. 21. "Ye have heard that it 
was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and 
whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment: 
But I say whosoever is angry with his brother without a 
cause shall he in danger of the judgment; and whosoever 
shall say to his brother, Kaca, shall be in danger of the 
council, but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in 
danger of Hell fire." 

Here the original is Gehenna; and 11 Hell fire" is the 
Gehenna of fire. Mr. Waller quotes this passage, you 
will remember, and ridicules the idea that it had allusion 
to being burned in the valley of Hinnom. Yet I will give 
Orthodox authority who says it has that allusion. You 
can judge how much it is worth. It is Dr. Adam Clarke, 
the celebrated Methodist commentater on the Bible. 

He says, "Shall be in danger of the judgment; shall 
le liable to the judgment. That is, to have the matter 
brought before a senate, composed of tioenty-three mag- 
istrates, whose business it was to judge in cases of mur- 
der and other capital crimes. It punished criminals by 
strangling, or beheading, fyc. 

" The council; the famous council, known among the 
Jews by the name of Sanhedrim. It was composed of 
seventy-two elders, six chosen out of each tribe. This 
grand Sanhedrim not onlv received appeals from the in- 
19 



293 



DHBATB ON 



ferior Sanhedrim, or court of twenty-three, mentioned 
above; but could alone take cognizance, in the first in- 
stance, of the highest crimes, and alone inflict the pun- 
ish maul of stoning. 

*• Shall be in danger of He!/ fire; shall be liable to 
tlte Hell of fire. Our Lord here alludes to the valley of the 
son of Hinnom* This place was near Jerusalem, and had 
bean formerly used for those abominable sacrifices, in 
which the idolatrous Jews had caused their children to 
pav< through the fire to Moloch. A particular place in 
this valley was called Tophet, from (ebrew) tophet, 
the fi e j'ove, in which some suppose they burnt their 
children alive to the above idol. Sea 2d Kings xxiii. 10. 
2:1 Chron. xxvii. 3. Jer. vii. 31, 32. 

*' Now proportioned to these three offences, were three 
different degrees of punishment, each exceeding the 
other in their different degrees of guilt. (1.) The juig- 
m"ti', the council of twenty-three, which could inflict the 
punishment of strangling. (2.) The Sanhedrim, or 
great counci', which could inflict the punishment of 
Mi mng. Ar.d (3.) The being burnt alive in the valley 
of the son of Hinnom. This appears to be the meaning 
of our Lord/' C< ?n. in loc, 

Here a single remark: why docs the Savior make this 
difference between sins, and say some shall be in danger 
of w the judgment," some of ** the council,*" and some 
<-of Hell' fire?" Mr. Waller and the other Orthodox 
hold that all sinners are to go into Hell fire. Why 
the '/* 'hie.lion between " the judgment," the "council," 
and " Hell fire?" Why subject one to the judgment, 
one to the counci 1 , and one to H'li fir el Either the Sav- 
io/ meant that some sins did not de3erve Hell fire, or the 
passage does not refer to the judgment and punishment 
in a future life. If the word Hell fire does refer to a fu- 
ture punishment, then there are some sins which do not 
deserve it. Rev. Mr. Townsend has a similar remark in 
the Chronological Bible, edited by Rev. Mr. Coit ; he 
says here are three gradations of crime, here spoken of, 
and three gradations of punishment. Alexander Camp- 
bell, one of the teachers in modern theology, and a great 
u reformer,'''' expresses the same sentiment in hi3 preface 
to the New Testament. We have the admission that all 
three relate to temporal punishment. 



UNIVERSALIS*!. 



29! 



Mr. Town send says: — "Mere are three gradations of 
crimes mentioned by our Lord, and three degrees of pun- 
ishment respectively annexed to each. The first is cause- 
less anger, unaccompanied with any abusive expressions 
to aggravate it; tli3 second may be supposed to arise from 
the same source, increased by an exclamation, which de- 
notes the triumph of vanity, mixed with insult and con- 
tempt; the third seems naturally to rise one degree high- 
er, and occasions the opprobrious epithet, " Thou fool. ,T 

The two former, we may observe, are threatened with 
the temporal punishment or animadversion of the Jewish 
tribunals, the council and the judgment, which were now 
deprived of the power of life and death, and could there- 
fore take cognizance only of minor offences. 

Now it is highly analogous to our Savior's reason- 
ing to suppose, that the punishment annexed to the last 
crime would be of a temporal nature also, particularly 
as it can only be considered a* an abuse of speech, like 
that Of the preceding, though in a more aggravated form. 
On the contrary, to imagine that, for the distinction be- 
tween 4 Raea,' and 4 thou fool,' our blessed Lord should in- 
stantly pas3 from such a sentence as the Jewish Sanhe- 
drim could pronounce, to the awful doom of eternal pun- 
ishment in hell-fire is vyhat cannot be reconciled to any 
rational rule of faith, or known measure of justice. But 
a critical examination of the original text will remove 
this difficulty." 

After giving the usual definition of the word gehenna, 
he continues: — ' From ihe loathsome scene which this 
place exhibited, as well as from the fires which were 
kept constantly burning there, it was frequently used as 
the emblem or symbol of hell, and of hell-torments in a 
state of eternity. But our blessed Lord may well be 
supposed to use it here in its literal sense, without any 
reference to its metaphorical meaning; and this will 
serve to clear the text of its supposed difficulty." Note, 
in loc. 

Let us now examine another passage. Mark ix. 43—49: 
u And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off, it is better for 
thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to 
go into Hell rv into the fire that never shall be quenched; 
where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. 
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off, it is better for thee? 



292 



DEBATE ON 



to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast 
into Hell, into the fire that is not quenched; where their 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if 
thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to 
enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having 
two eyes to be cast into Hell-fire; where then* worm dieth 
not, and the fire is not quenched." 

Now observe the contrast there is between " life" and 
the "kingdom of God," and "Hell." The inquiry there- 
fore is, where is the "life" of the Gospel? It is certain- 
ly in this state of existence. "The kingdom of God 
cometh not with observation," says the Savior, "neither 
shall men say, Lo here ! or lo there! but the kingdom 
of God is within you." Paul says "the kingdom of God 
is righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;" and 
it is again said, "Repent; for the kingdom of God is at 
hand" This means the kingdom that is within the hearts 
of men here. Does it mean that in this passage? or the 
future kingdom of immortal glory? Our Savioi said it is 
better to enter into it, maimed, or halt, or blind, than to 
be cast whole into Hell fire. Do we go to Heaven, and 
enter the state of immortal glory, maimed, or halt, or 
blind? Surely not; but the kingdom is on earth that we 
can enter in that condition of body. Then if "life,* 1 
here used as synonymous with the kingdom of Heaven, 
applies to this state of existence, Hell fire must also ap- 
ply to it. Both those states here spoken of by our Sav- 
ior, belong to the same state: they are directly contrasted. 

But say you, " the fire is not quenched." Let me give 
an example of this same phrase found in Isaiah xxxiv. 9, 
10: and then you can judge about its burning to all eter- 
nity, or belonging to the immortal state. It is applied to 
ldumea, and illustrates too, the " lake of fire," in Reve- 
lations: "And the streams thereof shall be turned into 
pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land 
thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be 
quenched night nor day; [it is in this world, because it is 
spoken of the land of ldumea,] the smoke thereof shall 
go up for ever: from generation to generation shall it lie 
waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever." 
Here are the strongest terms of unlimited duration about 
which so much has been said and written, applied to a te?n- 
poral judgment upon the land of ldumea. 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



293 



Again ; Jeremiah xvii. 27, will show how the sacred 
writers are accustomed to speak of "fire" that should " not 
be quenched.' 1 "But if ye will not hearken unto me to 
hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even en- 
tering into the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; 
then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof,' 1 ' 1 [of what? 
Hell? no: but of Jerusalem^ " And it shall devour the 
palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched" 

There is a difference between quenching a fire, and let- 
ting it go out, after it has consumed every thing in its way; 
it is not an endless burning. Here are two fires, then, 
which shall not be quenched; one was to burn up Idumea, 
and the other the gates and palaces of Jerusalem. There- 
fore when they propose to prove the eternity of Hell fire 
hereafter, they must take examples of other expressions, 
and not these. 

Take another chapter. Isaiah lxvi. 24 : " And they 
shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that 
have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, 
neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an ab- 
horring unto all flesh." Does that mean endless fire and 
worm? Yet it is declared to be unquenchable and undy- 
ing. Where, then, is the proof of the eternity of hell fire — 
derived from the use of the same language in Mark? 
Especially in view of the context, and other passages in 
the same connections? 

So much for the facts bearing upon this question. The 
Old Testament has the phrases, the sense of which is ad- 
mitted by the Orthodox writers, and they are used in the 
passages which Jesus Christ uttered. That is all that is 
necessary to say at present. 

As Hades and Sheol have been discussed, it is well enough 
now to present the real views of Universalists respecting 
them; not the carricatures of them presented by our ene- 
mies. 

Sheol means, literally, the grave, or the state of all the 
dead, good and bad; the place where Jacob went, and 
where Korah and his company went. David said, " The 
wicked shall be turned into Hell, and all the nations that for- 
get God ;" that is, into the grave, (Sheol,) literally. It 
expresses punishment, when used literally, only when they 
suffer a violent and premature death; as when Moses said 
of Korah, Dathan, and Abtiam, and their families, " If 



294 



DEBATE ON 



they should die the common death of all men," then the 
Lord had not sent him, but if the Lord should prepare "a 
new thing" as if the ground should open and swallow them 
up, then the people would know they had sinned against 
God; or again, where men are said to be turned into Hell, 
■ — expressing violence. But when in he slate of the dead, 
they have no more misery, and no more happiness there. 
Solon on says there is n>t knew/edge, or wisdom, or device in 
the grave, Heb. Sheol; Gr. Hadei; whither thou goest." 
There is no more consciousness in the grave — Sheoi — the 
literal Hell of the Old Testament. 

Most words may be used in a literal or figurative signi- 
cation. So Shea'. When a ma i is dead, all is darkness, 
silence, and gloom in the grave; and the word signifying 
the grave, was used* to express moral darkness and misery 
in the present life. Now Hell, in its figurative significa- 
tion is only the Sheol of the Old Testament, and which 
was used to represent missry in this life. "The pa ns of 
Hell got hold upon me. 1 ' says David. Afterwards he 
speaks of having been delivered " from the louest Hell. v 
He used the word in its figurative sense. In the literal 
Hell of the Old Testament, there was no idea of misery. 
In the figurative sense it was expressive of misery on earth, 
in the present life; not in the future life. The same is 
true of the Hades of the New Testament. They are ad- 
mitted to be alike in signification. This was the Hades in- 
to which Jesus Christ went, as said by Peter in Acts. In 
the passage, "O Death! where is thy >ting; O grave, Hades, 
where is thy victory? 1 ' the word is used also in its literal 
sense, as when applied to Christ. In other passages, it has 
the figurative mean ng;as in the damnation of Capernaum; 
44 and thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to Heaven, 
shall be brought down to Hell." That is, lo misery and 
degradation in this life. The story of the rich man and 
Lazarus was a parable, intended to represent things on 
this earth, by figures taken from death and the grave. 
If it were used in its literal sense, there would be some 
mistake between the Wise Man and Jesus Christ. For 
the Wise Man says, "Thfejre is no knowledge, or wisdom, or 
device, in the grave (Hades) whither thou goest." But Je- 
sus Christ says there is torment there. The argument is, 
then, that it was used in the parable of the Kich Man in 
its figurative sense, drawn from the darkness and gloom 



UN1VERSALISM. 



£95 



thrown over death and the grave; here affording no jro^f 
of post mortem misery. 

Those are our views. Through these you perceive, that 
-neither of these words had application to misery iu a fu- 
ture life; but applied altogether to misery in this life, by 
a figure drawn from death, and the grave, I request yoa 
to reflect on these views at your leisure, in connection par- 
ticularly with what Mr. V\ aller may say in his next 
speeclu I leave the matter with you, for the present, 

[mr. waller's twelfth reply,] 
My remarks this evening will necessarily be desultory, 
Mr. Pingree and myself have agreed to make a speech 
•each in the morning, by way of recapitulating the whole 
matter. Whatever new matter 1 may wish to introduce 
must be done now. I regret that the time agreed upon 
has not been sufficient to enable me to bring before \uu 
all that I wish or intended on this important question. I 
am forced for the want of time to omit many impor'aut 
matters. My business now will be chiefly to recur to 
some former positions, to notice objections, and further to 
contirm and support what I have already advanced. On 
many points of importance, 1 have felt that I have had 
no opponent. True, Mr. Pingree alluded to them some- 
times by ridicule, and sometimes by an effort at argument; 
but all simply by way of producing mystification, rather 
than casting light. 

And once more I will call your attention to the Judg- 
ment day. The position of Universalists on this subject is 
that the Judgment is in this world, and is constantly going 
on; and some say that the time specifically calle.J the 
Judgment day is the Gospel day; others, that it means the 
day of Jerusalem's destruction. If I understand Mr- Pin- 
gree, he takes the first two positions. Now, 1 have grant- 
ed that there is a judgment in the earth, that "judgment 
has come upon all men unto condemnation." That " he 
that believeth not is condemned already." I have grant- 
ed, and proved too, that the *' believer was justified from 
all things," that we are "justified by faith." But still this 
does not dispense with the doctrine of a Judgment day; 
when Christ shall judge the quick and the dead, and the 
fact that after death there is a judgment. These positions 
of mine have not been met. I have already amply sus- 

i 



296 



DEBATE ON 



tained my doctrine from the Scriptures, and will only 
refer to one or two passages heretofore adduced. Now 
how does Mr. Pingree dispose of the passage in Heb. ix. 27: 
" As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the 
judgment?" He admits the common sense reading of the 
passage is against him, and admits as a general principle, 
that the Bible ought to be interpreted on common sense prin- 
ciples; but then he says that I have departed from those prin- 
ciples, and therefore he may! Well, suppose I am guilty 
as charged, does he mean that my guilt is his innocence] 
Does he condemn what I practice, and then do the same 
thing? aye, make what he calls sins in me, virtues in him- 
self? If my memory serves, he has not, since this debate 
commenced, plead me as an excuse for himself, without 
first condemning in me the very things that he adopts ! 
But I wholly deny that I am guilty of the charge. No- 
thing that I have said or done furnishes the slightest pal- 
liation, not to say justification of the monstrous nonsense 
perpetrated in the Universalist exposition of this passage! 
I will not insult your good sense by following him in his 
tortuous exposition, as he called it, of the context. I 
plant myself upon the plain and obvious meaning of the 
text, and defy the gates of Hell to move me. The gen- 
tleman's exposition only proves that his system will not 
let him believe what God says — leads him to contradict 
what God affirms? What has he said? Why, that it is 
not appointed unto men once to die; for according to his 
own showing, it was not oppointed unto the H'gh priest to 
die, but only to kill beasts!/ This mode of interpretation 
would turn the whole Bible into nonsense, and I could 
prove just as easily, that in the beginning God did not 
create the Heaven and the Earth: that Jesus was not born 
in Bethlehem of Judea, that he never was in the world: 
that he did not die: was not buried: did not rise again; for 
these things are not more explicitly declared in the Scrip- 
tures, than that it is "appointed unto men once to die, but 
after this the judgment." To enter upon a defence of 
this passage, against the objections brought, is but to vin- 
dicate the Bible against the charge of being written in a 
manner which places it beyond the possibility of being in- 
terpreted by man! that it is worse than Jewish fables, and 
less intelligible than the books of the Sybils. 

But a judgment after death is supported by other pass- 



UNIVERS ALISM, 



297 



ages. Jesus shall " Judge the quick and the dead at his 
appearing and kingdom." John, in prophetic vision, saw 
" the dead, small and great, standing before the judgment 
seat of Christ." Again, the Savior said, " The queen of 
the South shall rise [exordiomai, " come out"] in the judg- 
ment with the men of this generation, and condemn them. 
The men of Ninevah shall rise [anastesontia] in the judg- 
ment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn 
it." Here the Son of God declares, the queen of the 
South and the men then living shall come out together: 
and the Ninevites and the men of that generation shall 
be raised together, in the judgment. What language can 
be more plain and unequivocal? And yet Universalism 
contradicts all this, and says there is no judgment after 
death! 

The fact then that there is a judgment of men before 
death, does not militate against the position that there 
is a judgment after death. As well might it be argued 
that because men live in time, they will not live in eter- 
nity: because the saints love God here, they will not love 
him hereafter: or because we have magistrates' courts, 
that therefore we have no courts of appeals! 

Mr. Pingree stated an objection to my reasoning on the 
propriety of the judgment day, and says, suppose Tom 
Paine had become a Christian before he died, how would 
he be treated in the judgment 1 ? would he not be condemn- 
ed for what his infidel writings had done? And so with 
other cases. Supposing 1 could not answer this objection, 
it argues nothing against the fact asserted in the Scrip- 
tures, that there is a judgment day. There are many 
facts, in and out of the Scriptures, that I am wholly incom- 
petent to explain. I am surrounded with mystery. But 
this matter, I am happy to say, is easily disposed of. The 
gentleman argues with me as if I were a Universalist. 
He forgets that I subscribe to the doctrine of the pardon 
or forgiveness of sins, in the human acceptation of that 
term. If we forgive men their trespasses, even so will 
our heavenly Father forgive us our trespasses. Yea, if 
a brother offends seventy times in a day, and seventy 
times in a day, returns and says, I repent, we are bound 
to forgive him. And God remembers the sins and the 
iniquities of the penitent no more. Had Tom Paine re- 
pented of his sins and believed in Jesus, his iniquities 



2S8 



DEBATE ON 



would have been pardoned, and his sins covered. As a 
believer he would have had his past offences remitted, 
and been taken into the family of Heaven, been justified, 
become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Of course what 
God forgives and forgets, he will not bring into judgment. 
Besides the very fact of his repenting and believing in 
Jesus, would be passing sentence of condemnation upon 
his former sentiments and practice; and then no one could 
urge these as his sentiments which he himself had con* 
demned. The public renunciation of his sentiments 
wou'd have done more to discredit them, than all that the 
ablest writers have urged in their refutation. They 
would at once have gone out of use and sunk into obliv- 
ion. It is easy to see that in this way he might have 
done more for ihe cause of Christianity, than h»! has ever 
done against it; he might have forever staid the influence 
of his works which no one else could do, and even turn 
them to favor the cause they now injure. 

I might, instance many men eminent in piety and use- 
fulness, who were once infidels, but no man now knows 
them as infidels. All the impression they make upon the 
world is in favor of religion. They have ceased from 
their labors, and I heir works do fellow them. They turn- 
ed many to righteousness, and shall shine as stars forever 
in the coronal of the Redeemer. Such is the doctiine of 
the Bible; and thus dissolves this objection at the touch 
of truth. 

As I am on the subject of repentance, I trust I will be 
pardoned for condescending to notice an anecdote related 
by Mr. Pingree, which, with the utmost deference, 1 beg 
leave to say, appeared rather low for such an occasion 
and such a subject. The substance of it, I think, was this: 
A man had some goods stolen, and upon being told that 
the thief would be punished hereafter, exclaimed, 4 '0h, 
curse the fellow, I'm afraid he'll repent." Now Mr. Pin- 
gree would have told him there was no possibility of his 
escaping a just recompense for his crime, that he would 
certainly and assuredly meet fuli and adequate punish- 
ment! It is strange that he should insist that our doctrine 
encourages immorality simply because it teaches that fu- 
ture punishment may be escaped, when he himself not 
only teaches that it may be escaped, but is here to prove 
that there is no such punishment at all! So his own an- 



UNIVERSALIS!*!. 



299 



ccdote makes himself rediculous. and demonstrates the 
immoral tendency of his doctrine! Is it not most astonsh- 
ing too, that fuiure punishment furnishes no terrors to 
evil doers, when he and his breihern have bren constantly 
declaring by mouth and pen, ever since the year eighteen 
hundred and eighteen, that many individuals have been 
made tenants of mad-houses in consequence of this terri- 
ble doctrine? But enough: ihe [Tniversalist who would 
curse a man for repenting of his sins, has a spirit, if not 
so grovelling as a thief s, yet much more savage and 
fiendish. 

Once more respecting Gehenna and Tartarus. He says 
that Dr. M'Knight admits that the Hehiew had no word 
meaning hell. Neither had it any word meaning heaven. 
Mr. Pingree says the word originally meant, the valley of 
Hinnoni, and told us as if it were quite a discovery, that 
Jeremiah went into Tophet! And what does that prove? 
By the same school-boy logic, I can prove the gentleman 
himself has been in heaven; for no doubt he has been in a 
flower garden, and I have seen him myself in the air! 
He admits that Gehenna meant hell in the days of the 
Savior, but affirmed with great earnestness, that God had 
not given it that meaning; but uninspired men! No mat- 
ter that was the meaning of the word in that day. That 
is enough, and settles the question. We are not asking 
how words came to have their meaning, but what is their 
meaning. 1 am not aware that there is a word in the Bi- 
ble that owes its meaning to inspiration. Certain it is, 
the Greek language in which ihe New Testament was 
written, was the language of Pagans? Did Mr. Pingree 
know this? If he did, it is strange he did not tremble 
while indulging his sneers on the uninspired meaning of 
Gehenna among the Jews. Even the awful name of God 
himself, in the original of the New Testament, had its 
meaning from uninspired men — from Pagans! And, I re- 
peat, the same is true of every word in the New Testa- 
ment, so far as I know or believe. Then, by the same 
rule be rejects the meaning of Gehenna among the Jews, 
in the days of the Savior, he rejects every word of the 
New Testament; which is a step further than the most 
daring infidel has gone! 

But he says the Jews got their notions of future punish- 
ment from the Pagans! Well, suppose they did; the Sa- 



300 



DEBATE ON 



vior endorsed them as true. Now is it not passing strange, 
that Jesus in reproving the Jews for their errors and tra- 
ditions, if he knew they held this error, so monstrous in 
the eyes of Mr. Pingree, that he never once reproved 
them for it — never once intimated that it was wrong? He 
could reprove them for tithing anise, mint, and cummin; 
for their foolish washings; and their superstitious observ- 
ance of days; and yet wholly neglect to utter one syllable 
of warning against this terrible heresy! Yea, he rebuked 
them for the things they had received by the tradition of 
their elders; but never uttered a word against this tradi- 
tion of the Pagans! Now, who can believe this? 

But it is enough, that he concedes that the Jews, in the 
days of the Savior, used Gehenna in the sense that we 
attach to hell. Now, would Jesus, in talking to them, 
speak in their own, or in an unknown, tongue? If in their 
own tongue, then he meant by Gehenna what they did. 
If he spoke to them in an unknown tongue, in the name; 
of all that's curious, I demand what tongue was it? And 
is it not a most astouishing miracle that they should have 
understood him at all? 

But the gentleman seemed to think it strange that the 
Apostle did not use this word when preaching or writing 
to the Gentiles. It is enough that they preached the 
doctrine. They told them that the impenitent should be 
" punished with everlasting destruction from the glory of 
God." They reasoned with them of '* righteousness, 
temperance, and judgment to come.'" They called upon 
them to repent in view of that day in which God should 
u judge the world by that man whom he had ordained." 
They told them that God would render " indignation and 
wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man 
that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile.'" 
They were told that God spared not the angels that fell, 
" but cast them down to Tartarus." But I need not mul- 
tiply passages. Mr. Pingree tells us that the Jews got 
their notions of hell from the Pagans; of course, then he 
admits that the Pagans believed the doctrine of future 
punishment. Why then did not the Apostles preach against 
it? Had they been Universalists, would they have not 
done so? Did you ever hear a Universalist preach; or 
did you ever read any thing from him half as long as an 
apostolic epistle, that did not have something to say for 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



301 



li is doctrine; and that expressed too in such plain language 
that no one could misunderstand the subject. And yet the 
Apostles went out preaching among Partialists, to use my 
friends favorite term; and far from condemning the doc- 
trine, used words and phrases that the most learned and 
acute — indeed everybody for seventeen centuries supposed 
decidedly to approve it! How will Universalists explain 
this matter? Will they charge the Apostles with being 
unfaithful; or else unskillful? 

But Mr. Pingree says, that according to the notion of 
the Pagans, Tartarus was a department in Hades; and the 
Jews taught that Gehenna was a department in Hades; and 
lie has proved that Hades will be destroyed, and of course, 
Tartarus or Gehenna! Now I am not sure whether he 
designed this for argument or wit. In either case it is 
entirely harmless, except so far as it concerns himself, 
The word Hades, as I proved, was a word of varied usage, 
and of course, its signification had to be determined most 
generally by its context. I showed that it was used in 
the sense of the grave; and m that sense it is to be des- 
troyed. In the sense of the receptacle of the soul separate 
from the body, it will cease upon the resurrection; but in 
the sense of a state of punishment, it is not to be destroyed . 
Now, it was used in these several senses by Jews and Pa- 
gans, and it is so used in the New Testament; but Jews, 
nor Pagans, nor the New Testament intimate that it shall 
cease as a state of punishment. Mr. Pingree ought either 
to have shown that it was not used in these several ways, 
or else ought not to have attempted this instance of wit 
or argument, whichever he may please to term it : for 
until he does this, such remarks bear all the lineaments 
of great ignorance of the subject. 

But the Orthodox taught two hells; hades was hell, and 
the lake of fire and brimstone was hell; and yet hades was 
cast into the lake of fire and brimstone! Hell cast into 
hell!! Or hades cast into tartarus, which is a department 
of hades! The greater cast into the less — the whole into 
the part !! The remarks just made apply to these speci- 
mens of wit. Hades in the passage aliuded to is evidently 
used in the sense of the receptacle of departed souls in a 
state of punishment, if the gentleman must insist that such 
are our views; and the souls at the day of judgment are 



302 



DEBATE ON 



brought out of this slate and united with the body, and 
then cast into Tartarus, Gehenna, or lake of fire and brim- 
stone. It was the inhabitants of hades, and not hades itself, 
that were cast into the lake of fire and brimstone; just as 
the inhabitants* and not Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all 
the region round about the Jordan, were baptised of John 
in Jordan. This the passage shows. And the sea gave up 
the dead; and death and hades delivered up the dead which 
were in them, and they [the dead that were in them] were 
judged every man according to their works : and death and 
hades [the dead which were in them] were cast into the 
lake of fire." Now the passage shows, not that death and 
hades, but those that were in them, were delivered up, were 
judged every man according to their works, and were cast 
into the lake of fire. So this most remarkable exhibition 
made by the gentleman in his desperate effort at witicism, 
was a most ridiculous want of skill in an interpretation 
not above the capacity of a Sunday school scholar! 

He told us that the punishments in Matt. v. 22, were 
temporal. 1 cannot see how this can be. Now what court 
in Judea had a right to inflict temporal punishment on a 
man for being angry with his brother? And what law, 
human or divine, authorized the council to inflict temporal 
punishment on a man for saying " raca," to his brothei? 
And who was like to burn a man in the valley of Hinnom, 
for saying " thou fool?" Such an interpretation makes 
nonsense of the passage. But let the punishments be 
spiritual, pertaining to that kingdom which is not of this 
world, and the explanation is easy and natural. 

He asked if men entered into heaven maimed? or blind? 
etc., and inferred hence that these passages did not teach 
a danger of being cast into Gehenna, in the Jewish sense 
of that term. This is sheer quibbling. I hope Mr. Pin- 
gree will pardon my calling things by their right names. 
The same mode of illustrating spiritual truths pertains 
throughout the Bible. The Almighty is said to repent, to 
be angry, to be pleased, as if affected with the feelings of a 
man. Whoever from hence inferred that the Bible taught 
that there was no God? — or that he was altogether such a 
being as ourselves? But Mr. Pingree's mode of interpret- 
ing Scripture would result in this. Therefore it is impro- 
per and absurd. The meaning of our Savior is, as every 



UNI VERBALISM. 



303 



one will see in an instant, that we must discard whatever 
is dear to us, if it leads us to sin; for it is better to give 
them up, than by committing sin, to be cast into hell. 

Well, he has abandoned the idea of quenching the fire 
which shall never be quenched; and of killing the worms 
thai never die. He now contends that the fire goes out; 
and the worm that dieth not, nevertheless does die! He 
may pursue unmolested all such wonderful achievements 
in logic! 

Hades, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, he 
says, is used in a figurative sense! Did he imagine this? 
Or was it communicated to him in a dream? Certain it is 
that it was suggested to him by the ghost of his system. 
If he had not felt himsalf reduced to the last extremity, 
he never would have taken the desperate position that 
the Savior based this parable on the phantom of Hades. 
I venture to say if this parable is based upon the figure 
of a thing that has no existence, that it has not its fel- 
low in the whole world of parables! And then it assumed 
this peculiar and unique shape for the especial accom- 
modation of Mr. Pingree's system ! 

But I perceive I have bestowed as much attention to 
this branch of the subject as my time will allow. I must 
proceed to other matters. 1 will take occasion to say, 
however, before I proceed, that Mr. Pingree, in asserting 
that " everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord and the glory of his power," and similar passages, 
related to temporal punishments, or punishments in this 
life, brought no other authority to his support than his 
own! As ponderous as I am disposed to regard his word 
on ordinary occasions, he must pardon me, if, on a subject 
so grave as this, I cannot receive it, baing alone. Mere 
assertions will not suffice. He must bring proofs. Ho 
must use argument*. 

Mr. Pingree told you that in admitting that aionios, 
though signifying endless, was applied to things of a limited 
nature, I surrendered the whole matter in dispute! The 
surrender is on his part! He has surrendered to me the 
literal meaning of the word — -he grants that to be eternal 
— endless. He does not dispute my position that it retains 
its literal meaning when applied to limited objects; and ha* 
virtually surrendered that in all such cases it retains itt 
ordinary n^aain^: and that the object, not aionios, is ef- 



304 



DEBATE ON 



fected, making the phrase hyperbolical. Then he sur- 
renders the point, that when it is applied to punishment it 
means endless or eternal, and that the Scriptures literally 
teach endless punishment, endless destruction, etc., etc. 
This appears to me to be surrendering the whole contro- 
versy. True, he has a salvo. He endeavors to make it 
appear that in all such cases, we must understand the 
language as hyperbolical, for he says that punishment is 
limited. Aye, but has he proved this? Can he prove it? 
The very assertion is begging the question, is taking for 
granted the very thing in controversy. But is eternal 
life limited? If not, neither is the punishment of the 
wicked, for we have these use antithetically. 

Matt. xxv. 46: " And these shall go away into everlast- 
ing punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." The 
words 44 everlasting" and 44 eternal" are translated from 
the same word, aionios. According to the law of antithe' 
sis, 44 everlasting punishment" is the very opposite of 
" life eternal," if the latter is endless, so is the former. 
This is necessarily so, unless we charge the Spirit of God 
with being incapable of communicating ideas intelligibly. 
Such would be the rule for interpreting it, if found in any 
correct writer. It is of universal application. I defy an 
exception in the writings of any author of repute. An 
exception would be a violation of the laws of language. 
If then the life of the righteous is endless, so is the 
punishment of the wicked. Jesus himself has placed 
them antithetically. So then 64 endless punishment" is no 
hyperbole. It is just as true as endless life. He that 
cannot lie, has asserted the one in the same terms and in 
the same connection, as he has asserted the other. 

I will quote one or two other instances of antithesis. A 

Rom. v. 21: "That as sin hath reigned unto death, 
even so might grace reign, through righteousness, unto 
eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." Here death and eter- 
nal life are opposite. Then sin reigned unto eternal death. 

Again, Rom. vi. 23: 44 The wages of sin is death, but 
the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." Here is the antithesis again. So the meaning is, 
" The wages of sin is eternal death; for if man was not 
entirely deprived of 4 eternal life,' how could it be the 
4 gift of God.' And if entirely deprived of 4 eternal life,' 
of course he was in eternal death. 1 might pursue this 



UNIVERSALIS SI. 



subject much further, but time presses. Enough has been 
said, I trust, to show conclusively that the Scriptures 
mean what they say, when they declare that the wicked 
"shall go away into everlasting punishment.'" 

A kind of Jerusalem mania infects the Universalists, 
and the contagion seems to have extended to Mr. Pingree ! 
Every calamity and every punishment, almost, mentioned 
in the Bible, they apply to that ill-fated city and its de- 
voted inhabitants! They are consumed in Gehenna fire 
and everlasting fire! On them feast the worms that nev- 
er die! They are raised out of their moral graves to 
shame and everlasting contempt? It was that city that 
went to everlasting punishment! Paul mentions its over- 
throw in his epistle to the Thessaloniaus, when he speaks 
of the day of the Lord as not being at hand, and that be- 
fore it came, the man of sin and son of perdition must be 
revealed, and then Jerusalem should be punished with 
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and 
the glory of his power. When the Apostle charged Tim- 
othy before the Lord Jesus Christ, " who shall judge the 
quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom,*' he al- 
luded to his coming to destroy Jerusalem! When we are 
told that Jesus shall " come a second time without sin 
unto salvation;" we are to understand he comes to de- 
stroy Jerusalem, and to send the disciples to Pella. When 
James speaks of the tongues being "set on fire of Gehen- 
7/a. v he means the fires of the valley of Hinnom in whicn 
the Jews were not burned on the destruction of their city. 
When Peter says, " The Heavens and the earth which are 
now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto 
fire against the day of Judgment and the perdition of un- 
godly men," that great event is alluded to. And Enocn, 
also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these thin^r, 
saying "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his 
saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all 
that are ungodly among them of their ungodly deeds whrqh 
they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speecr- 
es which ungodly sinners have spoken against him"! 1 ! 
The poor Jews, were the dead, small and great, which 
John saw standing before God ! "And the sea gave up 
the dead [Jews] which were in it, and Death and Hades- 
delivered up the dead [Jews] which were in them; ann 
they were judged every man according to their w«>rks* ,M 
20 



306 



DEBATE ON 



But it would take me several days to quote ail the pass- 
age? which they refer to this one event. 

But not the least singular manifestation of this mania 
is their treatment of Matt. xxv. 1 am aware that they 
attempt from Matt. xxiv. 24: " This generation shall not 
pass away until all these things he fulfilled," and the par- 
allel passage in Luke, to show that all the Savior said on 
that occasion was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalsm. 
Now I might show that the word generation may mean 
a race or lineage, and therefore might apply to the Jews, 
who, though scattered all over the world, are still most 
wonderfully, and doubtless for some wise purpose, pre- 
served a distinct people. I might, I say, show that this 
verse is clearly susceptible of such an interpretation, and 
thus subvert the last hope of the Universalists from it; 
but it is unnecessary. 1 shall commence 47 verses in ad- 
vance of this; and where of course it can have no neces- 
sary bearing, and give you a specimen of Universaiist ex- 
position, taking for granted, as they do, that this xxiv. 34: 
furnishes the key to the whole discourse of the Savior on 
this occasion. Matt. xxv. 31 — 34: " When the Son of 
man shall come in his glory [to th 3 destruction of Jerusa- 
lem,] and all the holy angels [Pagan Roman soldiers,] 
with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, 
[this is a hyperbole.] And before him shall be gathered 
all nations, [this was neglected,] and he shall separate 
thern one from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep 
form the goats, [this was not done,] and he shall set the 
sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left, [which 
was not done.] Then shall the King say to those en his 
right hand [to his disciples who were not, on his right 
hand,] come ye, blessed of my Father, inherit the king- 
dom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." 
[run over to the town of Pella which was built a great 
while since the forndation of the world!] 

Verse 41: <; Then shall he say, also, unto them on his 
left hand, [to the Jews,] depart, ye cursed, into everlast- 
ing fire, prepared by the devil and his angels." [go into 
Jerusalem, and you will be destroyed by the Romans; the 
" devil and his angels" are mere retorical flourishes!] 

Verse 46: " And these [Jews] shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment, [shall be killed by the Romans and 
go to Heaven;] buV the righteous into life eternal" [into 



UNIVERSAL ISM. 



307 



the town of Pella, to suffer poverty and persecution, 
many years after those Jews killed by the Romans have 
gone to the abodes of the blessed.] Let this suffice. You 
can pursue this course at your leisure, with other passa- 
ges similarly perverted by the Universalists. Their sys- 
tem stultifies the whole Bible: makes it more abs;:rd than 
the ravings of the Pythia — a complete nose of wax to be 
turned any way. It makes us build for eterni y upon va- 
por! The truth is, the passages I have been quoting just 
as well refer to the day upon which our Declaration of 
Independence was declared, as to the destruction of 
Jerusalem. 

I deem it unnecessary to detain in order to expose fur- 
ther Mr. Pingree's misapplications of the Scriptures. I 
have in many iustances thought it would be an abuse of 
your intelligence to notice them. 1 notsd two instances 
especially, in his last speech. [His quotations from 2 
Kings, and Jeremiah, which he said alluded to the seventy 
years captivity of the Jews. If you think it worth while 
to examine for yourselves, you will see at once the passa- 
ges have no such meaning. The name of his mistakes 
in this way, since the commencement of this discussion, 
is Legion. I charge him with no design in the matter. 
His system has put out his eyes. But 1 have thought it 
unwise to neglect weightier matters to expose his com- 
ments on quotations of Scripture. If I have erred it has 
been a defect in judgment. 

Mr. Pingree insists upon the necessity of a moral 
change after death, and even asserted that 1 had conceded 
the necessity! This is a most flagrant mistake. I have 
made no such concession, and hold no such doctrine. I 
subscribe implicitly to the declarations of the Scriptures. 
That every one who is a disciple of Christ, has the Spirit 
of Christ, and with his mind serves the law of God. Will 
Mr. Pingree himself say that such a one must be chang- 
ed, so as not to have the Spirit o-f Christ, and not with his 
mind serve the law of God, or they are unfit for Heaven? 
He mu3t take this ground, or his assertion that a Christian 
must experience a moral change after death is as empty 
as a vacuum. 1 know and lament the divisions among 
christians; but this is an error of judgment, it arises from 
education, from wrong teaching. But their hearts are 



308 



DEBATE ON 



cast in the same mould. Their heads may not be alike, but 
the same law is written upon their hearts. They have 
the same spirit, the Spirit of Christ, or they are none of 
his. But the gentleman wholly mistakes the matter, if he 
supposes that because they differ, they hate one anoth- 
er. No; he thai hates his brother is no Christian, but 
is a murderer, and has not eternal life abiding in him. 
Love is the fulfilling of the law, and the Spirit of Christ 
is love, and the man who serves the law with his mind and 
has the Spirit of Christ, (and without these he is no Chris- 
tian,) must love his brethren; aye, his enemies. Mr. Pin- 
gree, I am persuaded, doe3 not believe that I have any 
hatred to him, as widely as we differ. I entertain none 
but the kindest feelings toward him. Our intercourse, 
since the commencement of this discussion, is enough to 
convince him of this. And I believe he reciprocates 
those feelings. I am sure he does if his conduct has truly 
represented his feelings. There needs no moral change 
after death, then, in order to the amicable association of 
Christians in that glorious world ; but only better instruc- 
tion — the complete triumph of that love that now prevails 
in their hearts. 

In proving that the punishment inflicted on sinners in 
eternity, is founded in justice and righteousness, and, 
therefore, in strict conformity to the love and mercy of 
God — that it is not arbitrarily inflicted, or inflcteel from 
revengeful feelings, but the nature and necessity of things, 
I have completely answered and annihilated all that Mr. 
Pingree has said, by way of ad captandum valgus, res- 
pecting the misery the righteous must experience in be- 
holding the condemnation and sufferings of their friends 
and relatives. The objection supposes an impossibility; 
that the saints in light will have hearts opposed to the law 
of God, and to God's justice, holiness and love; hearts 
revolting at what is done in accordance with law, opposing 
what is just, and righteous, and necessary! This cannot 
be. Such emotions can prevail in no heavenly bosom. 
No heart can there revolt at a thing, when the righteous 
law of God approves it well. But the objection is found- 
ed in another mistake: that we take our natural feelings 
to Heaven, when the Savior tells us that we do not; but 
are as the Angels of God. This whole objection then is 



UNIVERSALISM. 



309 



founded in gross error; and Mr. Pingree's pathetic decla- 
mation on it is less than nothing, and perhaps was indulg- 
ed in because he had nothing better to say. 

Mr. Pingree's efforts in the way of pathetic, struck me 
as a most singular failure. He said that our doctrine 
made Washington, and other great and good men, the 
companions of the wicked in Hell! Mr. Pingree is the 
very first man that I ever heard say Washington was not 
a Christian! The charge is a slander upon his name! 
He was not only Nature's nobleman, but a Christian, u the 
noblest style of man!" Would the gentleman take the 
finest chaplet from the fame of this great man? And it 
is a most unwarrantable misrepresentation of our views to 
say that we teach the damnation of good men. We do no 
such thing, as every Universalist knows. 

Oh! but says Mr. Pingree, your doctrine was held hy 
the Pagans! Yes, and it was held, and is held by all the 
eminently good and learned in the present and all past 
ages. The fact that many, or even all the heathens hold 
the doctrine, is no proof of its having originated among 
them. As well might it be said, that we are indebted to 
them for the doctrine of Heaven and of the Soul's immor- 
tality. The ancient heathen philosophers tell us that the 
doctrine came down from the most primitive antiquity, and 
is " older than philosophy." They say it did not origin- 
ate with them. And 1 now defy the gentleman to point to 
the age this side of Adam when it did begin. If it came 
from the heathen, let him tell when, and who first taught 
it. But he ought to be careful in making reflections of 
xhis sort. He ought to have inquired into the paternity 
of his own doctrine. Mr. Ballou was the first who, ad- 
mitting the Bible, proclaimed that there was no punish- 
ment after death. But the very first propagator of the 
sentiment of no future punishment was a Pagan! 

[mr. pingree's last speech.] 
Respected Friends: — This morning, as we have ar- 
ranged, each of us has the privilege of discussing the 
question for an hour, according to the rule which is to 
govern us; and that is, that we are not to introduce new 
matter, but each is to have the privilege of replying to 
the last speech, or to any one made during the discussion. 
My present object will be to review as summarily as pos- 



310 



DEBATE ON 



sible, Mr. Waller's last speech of yesterday afternoon* 
and after that to recapitulate the prominent points brought 
up in this discussion, and the arguments adduced on both 
sides to sustain those positions. 

He told you that you would be astonished with what ease 
he could dissipate the mists I had thrown about the sub- 
ject; and no doubt when you saw how it was done, you were 
both astonished anil surprised! / was. I was almost 
alarmed and terrified at the first setting forth of such a 
tremenduous threat. He then proceeded to observe that 
he had a word to say about the judgment after death, and 
quoted again the passage in Heb. ix. 27, 28: making the 
declaration that it refers to a judgment after death, in 
which all the actions done on earth are decided upon. 

I have already said repeatedly, that neither Mr. Waller 
nor the Orthodox Church believes that, that all men will 
be judged for all their acts done in this life. He believes, 
and they believe, as I have shown, that a murderer or a 
liar, or any other sinner, may sin tili nigh death, and then 
repent, and die, and not be punished for his sins. So the 
upright man, who has done good all his life, may commit 
one sin, die thus suddenly, and go to Hell, and not be re- 
warded for the good he has done. The fate of both is 
determined to all eternity, by the state of mind and heart 
in which they are at the moment of death. If a man dies 
a sinner, he lemains so to all eternity. If he dies a saint, 
he remains so to all eternity. I say this is the- common 
opinion 

I called Mr. Waller's attention to the context of this 
passage in Hebrews. I did this to show the subject of the 
chapter, and the Apostle's argument, and thus throw light 
on it, by reading the preceding language, beginning at the 
16th verse: " For where a testament is, there must also 
be" the death of the testator. For a testament is of force 
after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force at all while 
the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testa- 
ment was dedicated without blocd; [" blood" is used for 
death, observe.] For when Moses had spoken every pre- 
cept to the people according to the law, he took the blood 
of calves, and of goa's, with water, and scarlet wool, and 
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people: 
Saying, this is the blood of the testament which God hath 
enjoined unto you." [Ridicule was attempted to be made 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



311 



of tno idea of a man's offering "the blood of others," in- 
stead of iiis own death; yet the Apostle takes that law as 
given by Moses, as an illustration of Christ's death.] "It 
was 1 here/ore necessary [mark!] that the patterns of 
things i i the Heavens should be purified with these; but 
the heavenly tilings themselves wiih better sacrifices than 
these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but 
-into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God 
for us. Nor yet that he shall cffjr himself often, as the 
-high priest entereth the holy place every year with the 
blocd of others.'" [This explains the passage, ** once to 
die." The high priest was once to die, that is, once every 
year, figuratively, by a typical death, as it were by proxy; 
not by hin. self but " by the hlocd of others" not his own 
blood.] For then must he [Christ] often have suffered 
since the foundation of the world; but now once in the 
end of the w^rid* [understand that,] hath he appeared to 
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is ap- 
pointed to men once to die, bi,t after that the judgment, 
so Christ was once offered 10 bear the sins of many; and 
-unto them that look for him, shall he appear the second 
-time without sin unto salvation." 

]t is plainly a comparison or contrast between the first 
^offerings of iho Jews, and the offering of Jesus Christ. 
He alludes to them in contrast thrcughout the chapter. 
■Christ was to appear a second time unto salvation to those 
that Icoked for him; for it was for pronouncing a blessing, 
and not a cursing, that the priest appeared, when he came 
out of the holy of holies. But if this "judgment" refers 
to a fulure life, the passage is then a proof of universal 
salvation, as before shown; though 1 deny that he has 
den oust rated that it has relation to the immortal state- 
It would be strange indeed, if Paul now should leave the 
subject of the sacrifices made by the High Priest, abruptly, 
at this point, and the offering of Jesus Christ, and talk 
about the natural death of all men, and the General Judg- 
ment to be followed by endles damnation! He did not 
do it. The passage belongs to his subject, and he is show- 
ing still the same general reasoning. There is no intima- 
tion of any punishment, either, to follow the judgment, as 
exhibited in this place; it was a judgment of justification— 
of "salvation." Mark that! 



DEBATE ON 



We have the passage quoted, "I came not to judge the 
world," etc. Admitted in relation to his first, his personal 
coming; but his second coming was to judge the world. 
This we have established by proof that has not been set 
aside. 

We have also, passages referring to the "day of judg- 
ment." That the "day" here, does not refer to a future 
life, 'I have established by abundant proof. When is this 
"day?" If it is to take place after the literal heavens 
•pass away, it is not " the last day." It is rather the first 
day of Eternity; because it is placed, according to the 
common opinion, after the heavens and the earth have 
passed away. We have Scripture examples of this use of 
the word " day," as found here. Says one, " now is the 
day of salvation." It is not a day in Eternity. It some- 
times refers to the whole period of the Gospel Dispensa- 
tion; and "day" is used in the same sense, as applied to 
the general judgment by Jesus Christ, it is a progressive 
judgment, going on continually, through the period in which 
Christ is now ruling, reigning, and judging the world, in 
his "kingdom," and by his Gospel. 

He quoted a passage in Peter, where he quotes the pro- 
phet Joel, in which he speaks of the " last days" But Pe- 
ter says those were the " last days." He referred to the last 
days of the Old Dispensation. John says, in relation to his 
time, " There are, that is, now, many antichrists, whereby 
we know that it, this, is the last time." It relates not to 
Eternity. 

He quotes the declaration, that for "every idle word we 
shall have to give an account." Does that not take place 
here? Mr. Waller does not believe that for every idle 
word, men will be punished. Peter denied his Master. 
Was he to be punished for it? Mr. Waller would say, 
No. We say that men are judged; but during the prog- 
ress of the Kingdom of Christ. Christ is the Judge of 
the " living and the dead," says Mr. Waller. But what 
says Paul in the text, to Timothy? 2d Tim. iv. 1: He 
says it is to be "at Christ's appearing and kingdom;" not 
in the immortal life; but during the reign of Jesus Christ, 
to commence at his "coming," and the establishment of 
his " kingdom." 

Matt. xxiv. and xxv. He says Universalists apply thia 
to the " destruction of Jerusalem." I protest against thia 



universalis:*. 



313 



representation of our views. This coming in power and 
glory, and the judgment embraces the destruction of Jeru- 
salem; but not all those things were to be fulfilled at that 
time; it was & progressive matter commencing then. I have 
not said anything about the "destruction of Jerusalem.'' 
Ail he said about the Christiana retreating to Pella, amounts 
to nothing. That was not the reward. The reward is 
"the Kingdom of God;" and that is within men; it con- 
sists of H righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.*' 
It is a perversion to represent Universalists as believing 
that Pella was (ha Kingdom of God. He knows better. 

He says that the passage, "this generation shall not 
pass.'' etc., applies to the race of the Jews being kept dis- 
tinct from other nations. Then where is the point of the 
Savior's idea, if that is the meanug of ••generation"? 
What meaus the illustration of li the fig tree*"? " While 
the branch is yet tender and putteth forth leaves, ye 
know that summer is nigh. So ye," > he says. li when ye 
shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the 
ioors. Verily 1 say unto you. This generation shall not 
pass, till all these things be fulfilled:" (that is, thousands, 
and perhaps tens of thousands ol years! according to Mr. 
Waller and others; yet it all bears upon the period nigh at 
hand, yea, even at the doors\) Mr. Waller therefore de- 
nies the ordinary meaning of the mords, 4i this genera- 
tion." to be the average period of human life. 
Mr. Waller. No. Sir. 

Mr. Pln&ree. If he does not, I do not see the force of 
his last argument about the " ordinarv meaning 11 of words, 
in the first chapter of Matthew, it says, *■ All the genera- 
tions from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; 
and from David un'.ii the captivity are fourteen genera- 
tions, and from the captivity to Christ, are fourteen gener- 
ations." Does the fourteen generations here mean four- 
teen distinct races of men? But the period of time is 
given; so that it cannot be so. But if there is no force in 
thai argument, the 16m of Matthew will settle the ques- 
tion as to what our Savior did mean; for he there says, in 
allusion to the same event, (verse 22.) " Verily I say unto 
you, there be som? stand ng here which shall not taste of 
death, till ;hey see the Son of man com ng in his kingdom."" 
The same idea is expressed in both texts, but in different 
words. In one place he says, M This generation shall not 
pass till all those things be accomplished ;" and in the 



314 



DEBATE ON 



other, " there be some standing here that shall not taste of 
death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom;*' 1 
that is, shall not die. It is certain, therefore, if Jesus 
Christ spoke the truth, that the second coming of Christ 
is past; as he positively said it should be in the life time 
of some then living. Was all that language, "pray ye 
that your flight be not in the whiter or on the salbath day ," 
etc., used in reference to the general judgment? ! Was it 
to be after the literal heavens and the earth had passed 
away, and we were in the immortal world? ! 

All that paraphrase about the Roman Emperor, and the 
Soman army. 1 wi 1 not reply to. I have advanced no such 
senthnents—CUrhl sits upon the throne of his kingdom, 
and rules ever his kingdom by the Gospel, now, and has 
for eighteen hundred years. 

Everlasting, as used in this place. Mr. Waller says that 
the word rendered 4i everlasting," is applied antithetically 
to future u I'ifiv- *wd to future "punishment; and challenges 
the production of any case where a sentiment is antitheti- 
cally expressed, and where the same word qualifying ihe 
objects means one thing in one branch of the antithesis, 
and a different thing in another branch. All this is unne- 
cessary — [ admit that the terns mean the same thing in 
both members of the antithesis. 1 have denied the posi- 
tion that either of them applies to a future state; and have 
asserted and proved that "everlasting punishment," and 
"everlasting life," when used in the same expression, both 
apply to this state of existence. Do 1 therefore deny the 
doctrine of a future life? No; it is incorrect in him to 
say so. Christ says, that at the resurrection, we shall be 
" as the angels of God in heaven." The doctrine of the 
kesurkkcticn establishes the idea of the future, immortal 
life. Then the 5;h of John has been introJuced: our Sa- 
vior's words are, " he that beareth my word and believeth 
in him that sent me hath — that is, n w — everlasting life? 
and he defines what it is; to know God and Jesus Christ." 
This they had — that was this "everlasting life," enjoyed 
here. 

Mr. Waller says that those who fell away from grace, 
can never be renewed. Yet they had enjoyed the " everlast- 
ing life," according to the above passage. Therefore it is 
enjoyed in this world, and may be lost, again, according to 
that passage. It is the enjoyment of "the kingdom of 



UN I VERS ALISM. 



315 



God," in this life. I do not deny immortal life. But I as- 
sert that the phrase, "everlasting life," as frequently found 
in the New Testament, has application to the spiritual life 
of the Christian in this world, also; although 1 do not af- 
firm it to have that meaning, exclusively. In 5th Romans, 
it is said, that as by the disobedience of one man "many?'' 
or the many have sinned, so by ihe obedience of one shall 
" mavyP the same many, be made righteous. Here is an 
antithesis. Take all his doctrine in relation to antitheses, 
which is correct, and see the result. How many are made 
sinners by Adam? All men. So upon the other side of 
the antithesis, 44 all men 1 ' who had endured the judgment 
of condemnation in Adam, shall be made righteous in 
Christ, and 44 justified,'" verse 18. Therefore it follows 
that all will be saved; does it not? There are 1wo verses 
containing antitheses in Ibis chapter; and both of them 
positively prove the doctrine of Universal Salvation, ac- 
cording to the gentleman's own mode of interpretation, 
which, in principle, is correct. 

Thus I have taken up his gauntlet, r,nd first shown that 
the text quoted by him does not, apply to the immortal 
state, and then thrown it down to him on the 5th of Ro- 
mans. 

As to " everlasting r5 being applied to 44 limited objects;" 
I have preferred not to deny what Mr. Waller calls the 
ordinary meaning of the word, but granting it, he admits 
that it may be applied to limited objects. If so, 1 say the 
word in itself does not necessarily prove the endless dura- 
tion of the object to which it is applied; and therefore can 
never prove ihe endlessness of punishment. His admis- 
sion destroys all the force of his argument. 

We hear again the old remark, that sin done here, in- 
fluences men after the death of the sinner; and yet he 
admits, that after repentance, previous sin is not judged, 
or punished. Therefore, as shown b; fore, the remark 
passes for nothing; it has no force at all. 

In regard to the agreement of mind among Christians. 
He agrees very well, to be sure! with all other sects, and 
with mine ; for he will not admit them nor us to the Lord's 
Supper! Now if the Church of Christ be thus divided 
here, and we undergo no moral change after death, how 
can they commune together with the Lord in heaven? 
That has not been answered. I put the question again. 



316 



DEBATE ON 



There is no concert among the professars" of Christianity. 
Perhaps Mr. Waller may be more benevolent than others; 
but you all do know that the professed Christian Church is 
a scene of strife of mind with mind. They do not dwell 
together in peace : they cannot after death, unless morally 
changed in heart and mind. 

The anecdote of John Newton — wilh his mother's influ- 
ence — was all well enough, but the prayers of his mother 
did not affect him till he was rn middle life. Now as an 
illustration of what I have before said, suppose this poor 
woman had sinned before death; according to the Orthodox 
views, she would have gone to Judgment as a sinner, and 
consequently to Hell, notwithstanding all her previous 
good works! This would be a necessary consequence of 
the state of mind in which she died, and not according to 
her general works on the earth. 

We have quoted here the passage, "avenge not your- 
selves; vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." Here is the 
difficulty of this passage, according to the Orthodox doc- 
trine : a man may not be avenged. He may escape all 
punishment, by repentance. That was the difficulty with 
regard to the man that stole the hay; who said, if he was 
not to pay for it till the judgment, he would take another 
bundle! Hence Mr. Waller himself does not believe that 
declaration. 

Gehenna and Tartarus in Hades. We have here the de- 
nial of Mr. Waller as to that. Mr. Greenfield has been 
repeated to us as Orthodox authority on this point. What 
he says has been understood. 

Mr. Waller rose to explain. I stated that with learned 
men, when they spoke of Hades as a place of punishment, 
might speak of Tartarus or Gehenna as a part of it. 
Where he slates that I said they were in Hades, I said only 
they might be. 

Mr. Pingree. Let that pass. According to the learned 
of the Orthodox, there are iw.i Hells. I have proved this 
on the authority of Greenfield, Ken rick, George Camp- 
bell, and others, that Tartarus and Gehenna are depart- 
ments in Hades. Greenfield says that Tartarus was sup- 
posed to be the place of punishment in Hades, and makes 
it equivalent to Gehenna. You may recollect my remarks 
»s to the doom of Hairs, proving that it shall be destroyed^ 
with the Hells within it! 



UNIVERSALIS!*!. 



317 



As to w human language," words changing their 
meanings, the New Testament being written in a Pagan 
language, there is no difference between us. But the 
•question between us, is, Did the Sacred Writers use Pagan 
words in a Pagan sense? 

How arc the words, Hades and Tartarus borrowed from 
the Pagan notion? They had Tartarus, and Elysium, or 
Paradise, or Abraham's bosom. If the Sacred Writers 
used these words with the acceptation common to Pagans, 
the Gospel reveals nothing new as to the future place of 
punishment. It simply adopts the Pagan notions. If they 
did not adopt the Pagan notions, by employing Pagan lan- 
guage, then Mr. Waller's argument and affected ridicule 
as to my views of human language, all go for nothing. 
Christianity is Paganism; or else Mr. Waller's labor is all 
lost. That is all I propose to say in reference to this last 
speech of Waller. 

I will now proceed briefly to recapitulate the arguments 
throughout this discussion. I have about one hour, but I 
may not occupy the whole of my time. 

After some preliminary remarks upon the origin of this 
discussion, and defining the terms of the proposition, 1 
proceeded to draw my first argument in favor of the pro- 
position, that the Scriptures teach the ultimate holiness and 
liappiness of all men, from the nature of God, his character, 
attributes, and relationship to men. I showed he was 64 the 
Father of our spirits;" that, as John says, " Grod is Love;" 
that God, as David says, "is Good unto All;" and, as. the 
Savior says, is " Kind even to the evil and unthankful:''' 
that though he punishes, it is for our good! That he is a 
Being of Goodness and Love, and that his unfailing good- 
ness is over all his works forever; that this forbids the 
idea of perpetual perdition and torture being the lot of any 
of God's creatures. 

The reply to this was, that if God punishes sin in this life, 
he will punish it hereafter. In answer, it was shown that 
there is a great difference between temporal punishments, 
inflicted for the benefit of the sufferer, and endless tor- 
ments, resulting in no good. Parents, to be sure, should 
punish their children; but for their benefit. If a parent 
should take his own child and torture him through life, it 
would be monstrous! The first is according to Universal- 
ism; the last is according to Partialism. 



318 



DERATE ON 



My second argument was from Romans viii. 21. M Be- 
cause the creature itself, [that is the human creation] 
shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God;" in connection 
with what Paul says to the Hebrews, "destroy him that 
had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them, 
who through ft ar of death have all their lie time been 
subject to bondage." 

To this second argument, Mr. Waller has replied the 
first passage, is confined to ike saints; but if so, it must be 
confined to the Roman saints, whom he was addressing, 
and not the saint* now-— Mr. Waller and others! But this 
has no force, because the Apostle afterwards distinguishes 
between the "creation' 1 and the saints; — " and not they 
only but wi j also," embracing all, saints and sinners. So 
the argument remains firm, and lias not been, and cannot 
be wrested out of the hands of the Universalists. The 
passage in Hebrews, has not been noticed at all. 

My third argument was from Romans v. The Apostle 
argues, that because all have sinned, it is necessary that a 
Savior should come; and concludes that they all should 
become righteous, be justified, live, and be saved. The 
argument is this: as "many" as have sinned, will "be 
made righteous;" and so be saved, be they more or lest. 
If there are any that are not to be saved, they are those 
that have not sinned. But all have sinned, and the same 
all are to enjoy this blessing; that is, according to the 
force of antithesis in the Apostle's argument. 

My fourth argument was from Col. i. 20: the reconcilia- 
tion of all to God. He savs it applies only to the saints; 
because addressed to the Church of Colossos. If restrict- 
ed at all, then it must be restricted to the Colons' an saints. 
But Christ was to reconcile all — "the world," to God; 
and even the saints were sinners, brfure they were recon- 
ciled. If all are reconciled, then all shall be saved. This 
is the doctrine of universal salvation. God will not damn 
those who are reconciled to him, but will save them. It 
is his purpose thus to save them; and his purposes are not 
to bo frustrated. The promise is of reconciliation, and 
consequently, of salvation to all men — to the world. 

6. The filth argument was drawn from 1 Tim. ii. 4, and 
iv. 10: where it is said to be God's will that all men 



UNIVERS A LISM. 



319 



should be saved; and that God " is the Savior of all men, 
especially of those that believe. " 

There are two sorts of salvation; thafc of the immortal 
state, which is a common gift to all, and that which is 
specially enjoyed by believers in this life. Says Paul 
44 We are saved, now. by hope." " lie that believeth not 
is condemned, or damned, already,'" says th) Savior. Be- 
yond them both, is the ultimate salvation of all men. They 
" shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into 
the glorious liberty of the children of Go;!;*'' and shall be 
u a3 the angels of GoJ in Heaven," clothed upon with im- 
mortality, incorrupt ion, and glory. 

The only reply to this was that men sin now, and there- 
fore they cannot all be saved. Partial ists differ among 
themselves as to the doctrine of endless damnation. We 
say that here men are " made subject to vanity;" but that 
"grace shall much more abound than the olfence;" and 
that, finally, all will be saved. Some of the Orthodox say 
that God will have tome to be saved, and will be able to 
accomplish his will with regard to these; (this is the Cal- 
vanist.) Others say that God would like to have all saved, 
but cannot effect it; (this is the Arminian.) Therefore 
God, in this latter case, must possess, if unchangeable, an 
eternally ungratified desire ! ! 

My sixtli argument was founded upon the doctrine of 
the resurrec'ion, as declared by the Savior lo the Sadducees, 
in Matt, xxii., and Luke xx.; and by Paul to the Corinthi- 
ans, in the 15th chapter of the 1st Epistle. Paul says, "as 
all die in Adam, so shall all be made alive in Christ." 
But *ht)W?V the question is asked; "and wHh what body 
shall they rise?" He then proceeds to say thai, they shall- 
rise with an incorruptible body, immortal, in power and 
glory. The Savior says they shall " be as the angels of 
god in heaven." Mr. Waller asserts that all these decla- 
rations relate to the Christians alone; and quotes St. PauPs 
language, "we," and "us," etc., in connection, to prove 
it. But this argument has no bearing on general doc- 
trines, like that of the resurrection, as before declared; 
because, if restricted in that manner, it would by the same 
logic apply to the Corinthians or.ly, whom he was address- 
ing. Neither Mr. Waller nor any of us here present 
could derive any benefit from it. We should have no 
hope of the resurrection, upon such a rule of construe- 



320 



DEBATE ON 



tion. Then the argument is absurd, in restricting it to 
the Christians whom he was addressing; because the oth- 
er fpassage," " we shall all appear before the Judgment 
seal of Christ," would by the same rule be restricted to 
those whom he addressed — the saints, — and not a]" ply to the 
whole world. But that passage has been quoted as a proof 
that all the world shall be judged. .Again, the passage, 
*•' How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" 
and so all those passages quoted. Mankind in general have 
nothing to do with them, if Mr. Waller's rule be adopted,; 
only the saints, living at that time. 

Then there was an argument al tempted to be founded 
on the use of the Greek particle e//,in the language of the 
Savior to the Sadducees; as if that lestricled the number to 
be raised and made "as the Angels ol God." I showed you 
Paul's declaration, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive?' 1 Christ himself says, "all live 
unto" God, in relation to this resurrection to a glorious 
condition. I showed that this particle ek could not stand 
between us and Heaven. I showed the plain declarations 
of our Savior, and showed that they referred to all men, 
to all who die, whether more or less. 

My seventh argument was that we find in the Bible, that 
all the enemies of man shall finally be destroyed, even to 
" the last," which is death, for Jesus is to " take away the 
sin of the world;" the devil and all his works, and hell, 
and finally death itself, are to be destroyed. To this there 
was no reply. The argument stands un refuted, irrefuta- 
ble. All men will finally be forever free from all ene- 
mies,-- sin, misery, death, hell, — every one; and conse- 
quently all saiv d, all hapjy. We need fear no enemy be* 
yond death, for Paul calls that ''the last!" 

These are the seven principal arguments that I have 
presented in favor of the proposition in controversy. 
They may be called seven pillars of the temple of univer- 
sal salvation. 1 have incidentally adduced others, whicti 
arc as follows, and may be numbered as the others. 

8. The promise of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
that he would bless in their seed — Jesus Christ — "all the 
nations, and kindreds, and families of the earth." Peter 
nays that this promise is to be performed by turning them 
away from their iniquuies. And this promise has been con- 
firmed by the solemn oath of Almighty God himself; it 



UNIVERSALIS^. 



321 



:annot fail. The blessing was shown as above, to be salva- 
tion a deliverance from sin. To this there was no reply. 

9. There is a promise of the subjection of all things to 
Christ, in xv. Corinthians, at the time of the resurrection: 
and that then Christ would surrender his authority to God. 
that God may be "all in all." To this we have had no 
distinct reply. 

10. The purpose of God is expressed in Paul's letter to 
the Epesians to gather together all in one unto Christ. 
Eph. i. 10: " That in the dispensation of the fulness of 
times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, 
both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even 
in him. I do not recollect having any reply to this. 

1 1* Next 1 presented the last verse of Romans xi. " For 
of him. and through him." that is to God, H are all things. 
to whom be glory forever, Amen." Here the doctrine is 
not expressed by the word, " salvation," or holiness, but 
that all shall return to God. Consequently, all shall be 
happy; or else those who are with God must be miserable. 

12. Then Christ says, "If I be lifted up, I will draw a! i 
men unto me;" and those that come, shall not be cast out. 
That is universal salvation. 

13. Again: " Every knee shall bow, and every tongue 
confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Fath- 
er.*'' Phil. ii. 9, 10. This cannot be, until all are purifi- 
ed, become holy and happy. Then they will make the 
joyful confession, and God will be glorified. 

14. The next argument is founded on the declaration 
of Peter in Acts iii., "Of the restitution of all things 
spoken of by God's holy prophets." 

15. Then Jesus Christ says, "Not one jot nor one tittle 
shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled;*' that is, till all 
men are brought to love God and each other; for " Love 
is the fulfilling of the law;*' and then " God,'* who is love, 
" will be all in all! " 

16. My next argument was that the happiness of the saved, 
requires the salvation of a/1 men. Now if the common 
doctrine be true, that there is no change after death, and 
the good are mad: miserable by the sufferings of others 
here, they will experience great suffering in knowing or 
witnessing the torments of the damned hereafter. If they 
experience no moral change, they will, while in Heaven, 
be made miserable, by the groans and cries of despair of 



322 



DEBATE ON 



the damned, crying from Hell for help and mercy. They 
never can be happy, while this lasts, though they be right 
by the throne of God; if there is no moral change alter 
death. Thus the happiness of the saved, requires the sal - 
ration of all. 

This is the fair, and beautiful, and most glorious temple 
of universal salvation, whose foundations are in Scripture, 
fact, and reason; whose builder is the Holy God, the Au- 
thor of our great salvation, who will effect the ultimate 
holiness and happiness of all his creatures. All sin will 
pass away, and all temptation. All will be pure, holy, and 
happy, and saved in the immortal state. These promises 
are the joy of those here who hold this faith. It leads them 
to adore the goodness of the Creator, and to love one an- 
other as brethren. Hearer! will you not enter into this 
heavenly temple, and rejoice even now, in all its light, and 
life, and glory? 

Opposed to this is the system of endless damnation — 
of endless sin and rebellion against God, with cursings and 
blasphemies of millions without number, of wretches en- 
during " Hell horrors 1 ' to all eternity. It is not true, says 
this system, that God and the Savior will destroy the Dev- 
il; but that he is, and will ever remain within the govern- 
ment of God, as an enemy— an arch-adversary, who will 
claim the largest and most powerful kingdom, and hold it 
to all eternity, in spite of God and the Savior; in spite of 
the Holy Spirit and all the powers of Heaven; having, in 
short, absolute spiritual sway over by far the greatest part 
of God^ moral universe. The powers of evil, says this 
system, have been in successful rebellion against the pow- 
ers of good, and will be forever able to maintain their as- 
cendency; so that the creatures of God's hand, whom he- 
loves and wills to save, are by violence snatched from 
Him, and made devils of, to curse and blaspheme his holy 
name, and yell in the tortures of Hell, to all eternity, be- 
ing wholly in the power of the devil. 

And this system is for the glory of God; is it?! It was 
for his glory, that this kingdom of endless pain, despair, 
and blasphemy was permitted, and the monarchy of the 
universe divided with the enemy! But sin is said to be 
contrary to the will of God: and } r et it is said he will ]ier- 
peluaie it, to all eternity! This is one of the horrible ab- 
surdities of Partialism. No, it is Universalism that glori- 



UNIVERSALIS!! . 



323 



ftes God, representing all his will to be accomplished; 
while Partialism glorifies the Devil ! ! 

I am now prepared to recapitulate Mr. Waller's princi- 
pal arguments, and my replies to them. There were 
various remarks made, which I look upon as being the — 
(I hardly know how to term it.) Though such remarks 
and insinuations make but little impression ; yet they 
evince an affected superiority in those who hold the Par- 
tialist system, and particularly my friend, Mr. Waller, 
over Universalists, and especially over his present oppo- 
nent. He has been insinuating continually about "a little 
learning being a dangerous thing;" and that I have but 
little, while he by implication, has "drank deep of the Pier- 
ian spring," etc.; also that while " in deep water, little 
boats must keep near shore;" and declaring that I know 
nothing of the doctrine he holds, and that I have not read 
enough, etc.; and expressing how he has been disappointed 
in the ability of his antagonist, and all that; and about 
Quixotic adventures, etc. These are the only things I 
have found unpleasant during the discussion. T have 
made no pretensions to learning or great talents, here or 
elsewhere. I would rather the discussion had gone forth 
without these things, and let all judge of the ability of the 
arguments, by the arguments themselves, and not by the 
great display of learning by the speakers. Mr. Waller is 
doubt a great scholar, and a worthy opponent of the doc- 
trine of universal salvation. Thus will I speak of him. 

The first argument he made was in the assertion that 
the "mass of well regulated minds," in all ages and coun- 
tries, have been believers in eternal punishment; and that 
those who believed in universal salvation were few and 
inconsiderable. You will recollect the reply [ made to 
this argument. The mass of mankind may be mistaken. 
Majorities are not always right; but on the contrary are 
generally wrofig in matters of religious belief. The same 
reasoning would extinguish light in the world always, and 
en all subjects; and stop ail progress. Moreover, in the 
proposition before us, the appeal is not to the mass of men's 
opinions, but to the Scriptures. 

He next said our doctrine was of modern origin; but I 
proved that the doctrine of the ultimate salvation of all 
mankind was believed from the earliest ages of the church, 
'by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, 



324 



DEBATE ON 



and others, until it was condemned by the 5th Council as 
heretical; and not till then was the doctrine of strictly end- 
less damnation settled to be the dogma of the Church as 
such. He said that modern Universalism, as he calls it, 
was a new thing; that Hosea Ballou was the author of it, 
and that it originated in the year 1818. But I showed 
that it was advocated a long time before the life-time of 
Mr. Ballou. A book was written two hundred years ago, 
by one Richardson, in which he denied all future punish- 
ment, on Scripture grounds. 

He next argued upon the cruelty of universal salvation, 
in making men suffer all they deserved for their sins; and 
said that we admitted of no pardoning mercy in the Savior. 
He dwelt upon the " demon cruelty," and the " malignity" 
of Universalism. It is incomprehensible to us where the 
" demon cruelty" of the doctrine of universal salvation 
lies. But for present purposes, it is sufficient to say that 
while it teaches that God inflicts certain and inevitable pun- 
ishment upon sin here, for the benefit of the sinner, it 
teaches also that all mankind are to be delivered from the 
bondage of vanity and sin, and made holy and happy here- 
after. My friend, Mr. Waller, thinks there is " demon 
cruelty" in this; while a doctrine which teaches that the 
greater part of God's creatures are brought into the world 
to be driven through it in a state of suffering and sin, and 
thence into a world of endless ,torment, while a few only 
are selected as the subjects of God's favor, has no cruelty 
in it, but is the perfection of benevolence and goodness!! 

Then he maintained that Cnrist suffered as a suestitute 
far all men; notwithstanding which the greater part are 
yet to suffer the sentence of endless torment in their own 
proper persons! Thus a double damnation is inflicted: 
first upon the substitute, and then upon the sinner him- 
self. As if the judge in a civil court, should accept a 
substitute and hang him, and then hang the criminal too! 
This is not common cruelty, but a double cruelty ! ! or 
justice, as it is called! 

Remarks were made with regard to forgiveness, the put- 
ting away of sins, remitting claims after they were paid, 
and punishing first fully, then forgiving the sinner, etc. 
But I proved from the Bible, that the sinner could be first 
punished sufficiently, and then be forgiven, as was the case 
with the man in Corinth; as to whom the Apostle declares 



TJNIVERSAL1SM. 



325 



that having been "sufficiently" punished, he must now be 
forgiven. The ridicule of Mr. Waller falls therefore upon 
the Bible, and not upon Universalists. 

He charged upon us that we denied the use of words in 
their common sense. This was explained by the force of 
the words in Scripture applicable to punishment and forgiv- 
ness. Sin is really referred to by the Scriptures as a disease, 
to be cleansed, purijied, and purged away by punishment and 
the presentation of powerful motives. They do not put 
away deserved punishment. God says, " I will by no means 
clear the guilty;" and "the wicked shall not be unpunish- 
ed." Yet here Mr. Waller says God will clear the guilty, 
and under some circumstances, let him go unpunished, 
which is a flat contradiction of God's Word. 

He referred to the words of Christ, respecting the sin 
against the Holy Spirit, as a proof that there was one sin, 
at least, which would never, be pardoned, to all eternity. 
The declaration of our Savior is, that all manner of sin 
shall be forgiven unto men, but that this sin shall not be 
forgiven "neither in this world, nor in the world to come" 
Is not this a plain intimation that some sins may be forgiven 
in the future life? Thus his view of the passage, refer- 
ing it to the future life, demonstrably establishes the Ro- 
mish Purgatory! But the " world to come" — then " to 
come," was (he age to come. 

Next come his "Twelve Facts" and Twelve Assump- 
tions." It is not necessary for me to notice these at this 
time. 

He next contrasts Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount, 
with the alleged language which he says Universalists 
would use; substituting the Hoicked for the righteous, and 
the unbeliever for the believer, &s our doctrine. This has 
been sufficiently denied, that we save the wicked and un- 
believer, as such. We say they will all be made righteous, 
and then and thus they are saved, of course. All this pa- 
raphrasing of that language, in the meaning he attaches 
to it, passes for nothing. It is entirely aside of the ques- 
tion, and is a miserable misrepresentation of our views. 

He quotes the passage that " no murderer hath eternal 
life," etc. But I showed that he believes some murderers 
will be saved; and the same of other sinners. So these 
passages should not be brought to bear on the condition of 
men in a future life. They are not believed by Mr. Wal- 



/ 



326 DEBATE or* 

ler himself, in that sense, so as to exclude every murderer, 
If so, then these passages are no proof of the endless per- 
dition of any human soul. 

He then objects to the doctrine of present punishment* 
Sin does not punish itself in this life, he say. 

Mr. Waller. I did not say that sin did not punish it- 
self in this life. I said there was not a perfect retribution 
in this life. 

Mr. Pingree. The very expressions he has referred 
to, as proof of punishment hereafter, show that the punish* 
ishment was in this, lije: that it is confined to the present, 
state of existence. 

Although it may be asserted that punishment was not 
all inflicted at some particular period of time; yet this is no 
evidence of its not being fully inflicted, finally, in this life. 

I referred also to the passage in Hebrews: " Every 
transgression received [the time was then past,] a just 
[not a partial] recompense of reward." Then again, the 
punishment of the wicked is said, in some places, to be al- 
ready accomplished. As where a Sacred Writer says, "The 
punishment of my people is accomplished;" referring to 
time then past. If the punishment was not perfectly 
accomplished, the fault was in the government of God, 
or else the Sacred Writers uttered an untruth. 

Proverb:? xi. 31: "Behold the righteous shall be re- 
compensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the 
sinner." This passage has been said to be quoted by Pe- 
ter, as follows: 1 Peter iv. 18: "And if the righleous 
scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner 
appear?" and this was quoted as a proof of endless pun- 
ishment hereafter. But I showed that Peter establishes 
our principle; for he says in the verse immediately pre- 
ceding, (1 Peter iv. 17,) " For the time is come — ihen come 
— that judgment must begin at the house of God." The 
time had then come, he says. The punishment, therefore, 
of the "ungodly and the sinner," in the verse following, 
is not in the future life: it had commenced then. In 
either case, then, it teaches present rewards and punish- 
ments; while the future life is the gift of God, and not a 
reward; — whether we read it according to the version in 
the Old Testament, or in the New. 

Mr. Waller has referred to the passage that speaks of 
" the sorer punishment" of men under the Gospel dispeo- 



UNIVERSALIS!*. 



327 



sation. I showed that this was in " the great tribulation — 
such as never was before," spoken of by Christ. But 
what is the Gospel for? "Is the law against the promises? 
God forbid!" says an Apostle. Men were judged by the 
law, during the present life. But the Gospel goes beyond 
that — the Gospel as given to Abraham. It goes to " bless 
all nations." They shall be "judged by the law;" yet 
all shall be blessed at a future time. I demand ihe place 
where punishment, was said to be endless, according to 
" the law." I call his attention to the fact that they were 
to be "judged by the law^ And it would be unjust and 
monstrous, lo inflict endless torment, when that law does 
not call for it. 

Again; it is said, " They that sin without law, shall perish 
without law." According to that idea, if there be no mor- 
al change after death, all Pagans are inevitably lost ; K 
" perdition," in this place, is endless damnation. They are 
•all sinful ; they are idolaters, and depraved. They will 
therefore be damned endlessly. So idiots are said to be 
depraved. So all the saints who do not die in a right con- 
dition of heart. For they say the condition of heart at 
death determines the immortal destiny. It has been ad- 
mitted that infants are saved. [low saved, if there is no 
change after death? If it were so, a good mother must 
destroy her infants, if she wishes them not to be damned 
endlessly; because if they grow up, they must sin, and 
perhaps be damned! 

Mr, Waller said as to the change after death, spoken of 
in the Bible, it was only a change of body — of the flesh. 
All have this change then. The wicked put off the flesh 
as well as the righteous. Do they not put off its sinful 
influences also? The same argument will apply to both. 
They will be relieved from temptation, " the flesh, and 
the Devil," and all the causes which interfere belween the 
spirit and holiness, and purity, and heaven. It is enough 
of a change for that purpose, to change the body, accord- 
ing to Mr. Waller's admission. 

Next was introduced the doctrine of the coming of Jesus 
Christ. I showed from Scripture, that his first coming 
was to proclaim his Gospel, and suffer and die, and rise 
again for the good of man. His "second" appearance 
was in power and glory io fully establish his kingdom, and 
was to have been in that " generation" — within the life- 



328 



DEBATE ON 



time of some whom he addressed. James said " It draweth 
■nigh,''' in his time. To John it was said, "I come quickly.'* 
Paul says, that some were living who would see it; there 
was to be "a falling away first;" but the mystery of ini- 
quity had already begun to work. If I understand the 
passages correctly, all corroborate each other; and there 
is no contradiction. Both say it was not then far off ; and 
45 the mystery of iniquity'- I account for by the early cor- 
ruptions of Christ's Gospel, which began to appear in the 
Church, through pagan philosophy, and which led to the 
grand error of endless damnation, and all its train of 
errors. 

We come now to speak of the doctrine of Judgment. 
Universalists say that the judgment under Christ com- 
menced when the kingdom ot God was established on 
earth, at his second coming; and that men are judged ail 
the time during their life-time, under his reign, and "ac- 
cording to their works." While the contrary doctrine is 
that their fate depends upon the state of mind they are in 
at the moment of death; which contradicts the doctrine 
that men are judged " according to their works." There 
is to be a coming of Christ at the resurrection. It is a 
personal coming; at that time there is not said to be any 
judgment; but all men are to be raised to glory. The 
judgment is to terminate in the universal salvation of men, 
at the time God has determined to raise the dead. No 
judgment after that; it ceases then. 

Punishment: Mr. Waller says it is just in God to pun- 
ish before the general judgment. He says the object of 
the delay is that the sins committed may work all the evil 
they can, before the final trial. But yet he admits that 
those who have sinned most, and whose works remain do- 
ing evil on earth, may have repented before death, and 
they will not be judged for their works, after all. So those 
who have done well — as Newton's mother, for instance, 
but die in their sins, will not be rewarded for their good 
works. This admission sets aside all that argument for 
men being punished before they are finally judged. Mr. 
Waller says Tom Paine used this argument. What if he 
did? I do not recollect ever seeing it in his works. He 
may have used the same idea; but was it necessary for 
him to insinuate that I borrowed it from Tom Paine? Mr. 
Waller presents nothing new. Suppose I say to him, you 



UNIVERSALIS*!. 



329 



" borrow" from such and such a writer, I care not what 
source the argument comes from, if it is a good one, and 
irrefutable. 

We next noticed the passages in Daniel, John, and 22d 
of Revelations. He says they relate to the "just dead 7 
and unjust dead." I showed that the dead have no char- 
acter at all; that in the grave there is " no wisdom, no 
knowledge, and no device," and that they " know not any- 
thing; nor have any more reward " 

Paul " hoped," desired, expected the resurrection of the 
dead, just and unjust. Could he hope the resurrection of 
men to endless sinning, blasphemy, and damnation?! If 
so, he would be worse than Tertullian, who said u how I 
shall laugh! how rejoice! how exult! to see the tortures 
and agony of the damned!" He hoped for it, because he 
looked for them to rise in glory, sinless and pore. Those 
passages in John v. and Daniel xii., I showed had marks 
of the time at -which what was predicted was to happen; a 
time short of the general resurrection ; and referring to 
the scattering of the holy people — and the troubles — ''the 
tribulation," to come upon men, in this life. In the 5th of 
John it is said " the lime now is" — then was— when " the 
dead should hear the voice of the Son of God." It refer- 
red not to the resurrection of the literally dead ; but those 
in ignorance, darkness, or sin. 

On the use of the word, " graves," in this place, it is me- 
taphorical Persons are said to be in their " graves" who 
were in captivity, and still living. That word does not 
establish the application of these threatenings to the liter- 
ally dead. Besides, the literally dead are in Hades, 
another word from the one here rendered " graves." 

The argument from the use of the word "-fire" as re- 
presenting punishment, I showed that those expressions 
apply to this life, and not to the immortal state. Sodom 
and Gomor rail were burned by fire; yet that did not relate 
to eternity. The use of the word fire does not, can not 
prove endless punishment in a future life by fire; even 
though it is called " everlasting fire." We are said to be 
"purged" by fire. It is applied to things saved; as things 
are purified by fire. 

His readings of Scripture, substituting the love of God 
for the anger of God — the fierce love of God for the fierce 
.wrath of God, and calling a fierce fire a fierce blessing, etc. 



330 



DERATE ON 



falls harmless upon my position. It is only a ridiculing 
<of the Scriptures; for they teach that we are " saved so as 
by fire;" Mr. Wallers attempt to ridicule the idea, to the 
contrary, notwithstanding. 

Next we have the sufferings of the righteous in this life. 
He speaks of the oppressor and the oppressed meeting in 
heaven; and attacks Universalism on that, account. I 
showed that on his theory, there was more chance for the 
oppressor going to heaven, than the oppressed. The one 
has wealth, education, society, and is in the way of pos- 
sessing every advantage to enlighten his mind and learn 
the truth, unto repentance, while the other is often poor, 
ignorant, neglected, down-trodden, and in the way of be- 
coming vicious; so that the former may go to heaven, and 
the latter to Hell, on his theory. After oppressing and 
persecuting his victim on earth, and perhaps being the 
means of driving him to Hell, the oppressor may, after 
death, have the pleasure of exulting and gloating over the 
poor wretches' sufferings in eternal torture!! 

The reply is of no consequence, about bringing the holy 
and wicked together, hereafter. I show it to be the glory 
of the Gospel to bring those who hate, to love; so that, 
finally, there will be none wicked. This, I repeat, is the 
glory of Christianity, to accomplish this; and yet Mr. Wal- 
ler attempts to ridicule the idea! 

Thai Hell or Hadei is a place of punishment, he says is 
proved by the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus; and 
he says that no other parable can be found based on fiction 
or falsehood. 

Mr. Waller. I said that out Savior would not use a 
parable based on that which could not exist. 

Mr. Pingree. The argument supposes that Hades em- 
braced Tartarus; and that Tartarus was a place of future 
punishment, and was used by the Savior in the same sense 
as used by the Jews at that time ; for I he argument is 
founded on this assertion. Christ is made therefore to 
adopt only the Pagan Hades, if used as they used it; — the 
Jews having learned it from them, and if not, there is no 
force in the argument. 

Sheol and Hades mean literally only the state of the 
dead, good and bad. It is the state of unconsciousness and 
sleep, and the associations of darkness and gloom are al- 
ways connected with the grave. When used figuratively, 



tT N I V B R 3 A L I S M . 



it means moral, darkness and degradation and gloom; and 
in that sense is applied to the condition of those men who- 
are in this life punished for their sins; as David says. 
*' The pains of Hell gat hold upon me — I found trouble and 
sorrow." This was Hell to him, but endured here, and 
not in the immortal state. When used literally, it does 
not represent suffering; — only when used figuratively, re- 
lative to this life; the figure is drawn from death and the 
grave. 

As to Gehenna, it relates to the temporal calamities of 
the Jewish people. — not particularly to being buried alive 
in the valley of Hinnom — but to great tribulations and 
calamities to be endured in this life, as shown by an appeal 
to the language of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Savior him- 
self. Neither word, then, — Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or 
Gehenna, — refers to what is to be after the resurrection 
in a future state. Each word, so far as punishment is ex- 
pressed by it, is confined to this life. 

Next we have a discussion on the words " everlasting,'" 
" forever." "eternal," etc. Granting all that ho asks, for 
argument's sake. I showed that these words were often 
applied to things of limited duration. And Mr. Waller ad- 
mits this. If not, he would be compelled to be a Jew, and 
offer sacrifices, as under the old •*' statute.'''' said to be "ever- 
lasting;'" or else, he would contradict and dethrone God, 
by his being a Christian, accoring to what he has said of 
Universrlist views. What then is my argument? That 
everlasting does never mean eternal? not that. I do not 
say that it cannot; but I say it is not necessarily so, from 
these ivoi ds bring applied to it, which ice know are applied to 
things not endless; and then from other sources I prove that 
punishment is not endless. 

"Fire unquenchable." Mr. Waller savs we contradict 
Scripture by saying it may be quenched. The worm that 
never dies, we say does die, etc. 1 showed that we have 
both these terms applied in Scripture to things began and 
ended in this life. Fire, which was called " unquenchable,'' 
has gone out long ago. Apply the same argument to the 
passage in 34th of Isaiah, and last chapter of Isaiah. So 
the fire in 25th of Matthew; where it is said to be with 
" the Devil." There is an illustration of this in 1 Cor. v.. 
in the case of the incestuous man who was delivered over 
to Satan, and received sufficient punishment; and yet that 



332 



DEBATE ON 



was in the present life. So that form of expression does 
not refer to a future life. Besides, these things are con- 
nected with the coming of Jesus Christ, which was to be 
within that generation, the life-time of those then living.. 

On the sufferings of Jesus Christ, he charges me with 
being ignorant of the Orthodox doctrine of atonement. I 
say if Christ suffered in the stead of sinners, then all are to 
be saved, unless monstrous injustice is done. That is 
universal salvation; or else God desires a double vengeance! 
Jesus Christ suffering our punishment first, then we suffer 
it over again afterward! — double damnation!! 

We next hear about the unequal distribution of rewards 
and punishments in this life. Here I quoted Ezekiel, who 
said they were equal, in opposition to the doctrine of the 
gentleman, and the wicked people living in Ezekiel's time. 

When and where are all men to enjoy this universal sal- 
vation? Mr. Waller asks. The Bible does not tell, pre- 
cisely; neither does my proposition require me to tell. — 
Salvation is the M ultimate" condition of all men. 

One thought more on this subject. If there is no change 
after death, will not the wiched be happy in Hell? for Mr. 
Waller has said they are happy here. There they will 
have their boon companions, continue sinful, and so be 
happy even in Hell; that is, if the wicked man is happy 
here, as Mr. Waller has asserted, and there is no moral 
change after death. In this case even, we have universal 
happiness, if not universal salvation. 

Allow me to return my sincere thanks to the audience* 
for the good order and feeling which they have manifested 
during this discussion. We have not had to witness strife 
among our hearers, but there has been a good tone of feel- 
ing throughout. 

I than the Moderators for their presence and attention, 
though they have not been called on for a decision of any 
point, during the discussion. 

I tender my thanks. 

[mr. waller's last reply.] 
We have now arrived at the conclusion of the whole 
matter. Let us review the grounds passed over, and calm- 
ly survey the condition of things. We are now in posses- 
sion of the whole strength of Universal ism.. All that was 
possible for him to present, Mr. Pingree has presented. 



UN I VERS ALISM. 



335 



He has not been straitened for time, and has had a patient 
hearing. And in justice to him and with perfect candor, I 
must be permitted to say, that he has fully sustained the cha- 
racter given of him to me by his brethren, as being one of 
the ablest advocates and defenders of their cause. Others 
perhaps might have been found, who would have] been 
more adventurous — have entered upon the defence of mat- 
ters which he has declined to defend. But his extreme 
caution has been his strength. While he has adriotly en- 
deavoured to conceal the deformed features of his system, 
he has, with admirable tact and ability, presented what- 
ever might appear pleasing and plausible about it. He 
has spoken for triumph; and if he has failed in his efforts to 
persuade you to embrace his sentiments, I believe no one 
else need attempt it. If Universalism has fallen it has been 
of its own weight, and because it cannot be sustained, how- 
ever well defended. J have read much in its favor, and I 
know that Mr. Pingree has laid before you all that has 
any real claims to strength or ingenuity in the whole 
scheme. You then are in possession of Universalism with 
its reasons. Let us briefly examine it. 

It is a remarkable fact, that while Mr. Pingree stood 
pleged before you, to prove from the Scriptures " the ulti- 
mate holiness and salvation of all men," he has not ad- 
duced the first passage that expressly sustained his propo- 
sition; or either part of it. He said that all men would 
ultimately be holy; but he cited no passage of the Bible 
which asserted it distinctly. He said that all men would 
be ultimately saved; but found no text that said so too! 
He made no attempt to sustain himself in this way, and 
was forced by the dire necessities of his cause, to make 
good his proposition, as well as he could, by inference f 
in a matter so weighty, involving the tremendous concerns 
of the soul in eternity, inference, to say the least of it, is 
a dangerous and hazardous mode of arriving at conclu- 
sions. These inferences were at first seven, he called 
them seven pillars, corresponding, as he assured us, to sev- 
en pillars in some temple of wisdom! He afterwards ad- 
ded another, and these were all, as he assured us. in his. 
summary, however, this morning, he enumerated fourteen! 
But he made this number by splitting the original pillars L 
They are all comprehended, in fact, in his first inferences. 
We now call your attention to them in order: 



334 



DEBATE ON 



1st. He inferred the ultimate holiness and salvation 
of all men, in the first place, from the nature and charac- 
ter of God, and his relations to men; He was good, his 
nature was love, and he was the father of our spirits. 

I showed, in reply, that this proved too much for Uni- 
versalism, which, in logic, is the same as proving nothing 
at all. Fov, according to Universalism. God decreed all 
the sin and misery of this life, and decreed it too, in love 
and for the good of mankind. It asserts also that God is 
unchangable; and consequently the same love and good- 
ness would perpetuate sin and misery, world without end, 
unless God annulled his decree and changed his plan of 
benevolence, which is all one as to assert that his character 
has changed ! So that Universalism, instead of the ultimate 
holiness and salvation of all men, proves the very reverse! 
We proved also, that punishment was founded in justice 
and righteousness, and of course in love. So that instead' 
of the nature and character of God and his relations to 
wen subverting the doctrine of future punishment, it was 
established by them. 

It was further showed, that while Universalism asserted' 
that God was love, and that he was merciful and kind, for 
the sake of an argument; yet it did not hold really any 
such sentiment; but on the contrary taught that there was 
no forgivness with God, as that word is understood in the 
language of men — that he would not forgive men their tres- 
passes — that he visited on every man full and adequate 
punishment for every transgression! That though sin- 
ners should repent, and the Son of God intercede, yet 
God would sternly exact the utmost farthing for their sins.. 

And thus this pillar of Universalism was demolished? 
And thus ended his first speech and his first argument; hid 
time not being filled out! 

2nd. His second inference was from Romans viii. 18 — 
L l\. But as he utterly failed to show from the passage 
that the earnest expectation of all men waited for the 
manifestation of the sons of God; as he did not attempt 
to prove, and as it was utterly impossible to prove, had 
the attempt been made, that infants, idiots, infidels, athe- 
ists, pagans, etc., etc. have any expectations on the subject, 
or waited for any such manifestation, this whole inference, 
" like the baseless fabric of a vision," vanished into air- 
thin air. 



XJ N I V E R S A L I S M . 



335 



3d. His third inference was founded on Romans v. 12, 
etc. But when I inquired and pressed him to give an ex- 
plicit answer — whether he believed in the fall of man! that 
sin had come upon all men in consequence of Adam's trans- 
gression? and whether he did not believe that men now pos- 
sessed the same character as when created! he gave no res- 
ponse. The inquiry remains unanswered; leaving the im- 
pression that he does not believe the doctrine of the fall 
of man. Indeed; on his second proposition, he frequently 
and emphatically quoted, " The creature was made subject 
to vanity apparently to prove that man was created as 
he now is. How then could the declaration, "as by the 
offence of one Judgment came upon all men unto condem- 
nation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life 11 — prove Mr. 
Pingree's doctrine, when he does not believe that all are 
in condemnation by the offence of one, and when he ut- 
terly repudiates the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ? 
And especially too, since it is declared in the same connec- 
tion, that this gift of God is " through righteousness, [not 
through sin,] unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord?' 1 ' 
This inference then utterly failed him! 

4th. This inference was drawn from 2 Cor. v. 19: 
"God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. 11 
But I showed that the school of Universalism of which- 
Mr. Pingree was a disciple, taught that "all the evils from 
which Christ came to save men were in this life;" that he 
" came into the world to save men from the evil thereof,' 1 
and therefore, this text, to suit his purpose, must prove- 
that all men are reconciled to God in this life! which is 
alike abhorrent to reason, to revelation, and to common' 
sense. But granting his system contended that this recon- 
ciliation was brought about in the life to come, I demand- 
ed whether it was effected by means of the gospel, or by 
some other means? To this inquiry he admitted he could 
give no answer, and insisted he was not bound to give any? 
So his own inference, by his own confession, drifted him 
into an ocean without a bottom, and without a shore ; on 
which he was tempest-tossed, in the gloom and darkness of 
profound ignorance, without a rudder or a compass? It 
was further shown from the context, that the work of re- 
conciliation was committed to the disciples; for the re- 
mainder of the verse says, " and hath committed unto us 



336 



DEBATE ON 



the word of reconciliation." And we demanded to be in- 
formed whether, after death, this word was still in the 
hands of the disciples? Or whether the work of recon- 
ciliation took place there without faith? And if so, how? 
And if by faith, how could they believe in him of whom 
they had not heard? And if they heard, how could they 
hear without a preacher? And who preached to them 
there? To these questions, Mr. Pingree absolutely refus- 
ed to reply; admitting again that his system led him whol- 
ly beyond the light of revelation, far into the regions of 
chaos and ni^ht! And thus this inferential pillar of Uni- 
versalism was lost in the thick clouds of darkness, utterly 
beyond the ken of the mind's eye! 

5th. His fifth inference was drawn from ] Tim. ii. 4: 
"Who will have all men to be saved and come to the 
knowledge of the truth." He alleged that God's will 
must be done — that he would do all his pleasure, and none 
could hinder him. This, I also demonstrated, proved too 
much. For Mr. Pingree had no right to infer that this 
"will" extended only to another life. That it was true of 
this world. Besides, Universalism affirmed that Christ 
came lo save men from this present evil world. That, 
therefore, this text proved, according to Universalism, that 
all men are saved here! that all men have the knowledge 
of the truth here!! 

Besides; it is the will of God that no man should blas- 
pheme; for he has said to every one, "Thou shalt not 
take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," therefore, 
according to Mr. Pingree's reasoning on the will of God, 
no man can take the name of the Lord in vain. It isGocFs 
will that no one should worship idols, for he wrote with 
his own hand, " Thou shalt have no other gods before 
me:" ergo, says Mr. Pingree, there are no idolaters! His 
will is that none should lie; for he has said, "Thou shalt 
not bear false witness;" therefore none do lie! Jt is the 
will of the Lord, that none should murder, for he has said 
" thou shalt not kill;" therefore no man ever took the 
life of his fellow man! His will is that all men should 
love Him supremely, and each other as themselves; and 
:'>.:< '-"fore all do love him supremely and their neighbors 
as themselves!! 

Verily, Universalism is a most splendid scheme — in the- 
ory. For it not only proposes to save all men hereafter, 



¥N I VERBALISM. 



337 



but makes them as pure as the law of God in this world! 
demonstrates that no one of the innumerable millions of 
men who have inhabited the earth ever committed a sin, 
~md shows that it is utterly impossible for sin to be com- 
mitted by any of the millions who may flourish hereafter! 
Aye, proves that there never was such a thing as sin! — 
that it is a sheer chimera!! The radical defect in the 
scheme is, that it is ALL THEORY! — it is all shadowy va- 
por, as impalpable to the touch of common sense as the 
ghosts of Fiflga.1! It is a monstrous falsehood ! — an ig- 
nis fa'uus of Hell, dancing in the quagmires of murky im- 
aginations to delude men of their souls! 

Under this inference he quoted also 1 Tim. iv. 10: He 
* is the Savior of all men, but especially of those that be- 
lieve." I showed from one of his own writers, that this* 
special or greater salvation was confined to this hie; and 
therefore, the general or less salvation cannot extend to 
the life to come. Through Jesus are received all the 
blessings of life, and of these all men partake. This is 
the common salvation. 

6th. He next inferred his doctrine, because as he said, 
the enemies of all men were to be destroyed. And his ar- 
guments under this head were most unique. Because the 
Apostle declared that temporal death, the last enemy of 
the Christian, should be destroyed. Mr. Pingree came to 
the strange and illogical conclusion, that there was n© 
second death! — no destruction of both soul and body in 
belli — no everlasting punishment! — no casting of the 
wicked into the lake of fire which is the second death!! 
Ilia premises and conclusions were the poles asunder. 

His effort at the destruction of the Devil was also a sin- 
gular affair! He quoted a passage on the destruction ot 
the icorks of the devil, and then in the true warrior pomp, 
iie rose in all the grandeur of conquest, "his arm reful- 
gent with the stroke of satan's death, and bade the con- 
gregation hail! for lo! the devil prostrate in the dust! 
and man again is free!"' It was really an achievement in 
fhe moral — not sublime, but ridiculou?, beyond all lan- 
guage, and which defies all description. It reminded me 
of the old nursery ballad: — 

**. Some s;iv the Devil's dead 
And buried in a Pumpkin." 

in sober seriousness, I though: his rencounter with the 
22 



338 



DEBATE ON 



prince of darkness a very doughty affair; as purely fan- 
ciful as the renowned adventures of La Mancha's "Knight 
of the woeful countenance.'" It was all smoke, depend 
upon it, and this pillar of his system, the mere vapor of 

smoke ! 

7th. His next inference was founded upon 1 Cor. 15: 
This I showed could prove nothing for him, although he 
was pleased to call it, the "main pillar" of Universalism, 
— because the apostle was proving the resurrection of the 
miMs, and therefore, not " the ultimate holiness and salva- 
tion of all men." We proved that the dead in Christ (and 
the apostle in this chapter was treating of such — of those 
who "were Christ's," and not of those who were not 
Christ's) should be raised before the wicked; — that those 
who should be accounted worthy to obtain Heaven, should 
be raised "out of" [ek] or "from among" the dead. 
That while the righteous should be raised to glory, the 
w ickcd should be raised to shame and everlasting contempt 
— that the righteous should come forth to the resurrection 
of life, and the wicked to the resurrection of damnation. 

Instead of replying to the arguments and criticisms 1 
advanced on the Savior's reply to the Saducees respecting 
the resurrection from [ek- — out of] the dead, Mr. Pingree 
attempted to be facetious on my making so much, as he 
was pleased to say, of the little word ek! True, the word 
is short, very short, but is, nevertheless, a lever of suf- 
ficient length, aye, and of strength too, to overturn the 
whole system of Universalism. I grant this may be ow- 
ing to the emptiness and want of gravity on the part of 
the system. That I leave Mr. Pingree philosophically to ac- 
count for to his own satisfaction and at his earliest leisure. 
If our criticism be incorrect, then it follows, that when 
Lazarus arose, all the dead arose; and that when Christ 
arose, all the dead arose again; for both Lazarus and the 
Savior, the Scriptures tell us, arose from [ek] the dead. 
Aud if all the dead rose these several times, then Peter on 
the day of penticost, though full of the Holy Ghost, 
committed an egregious blunder, in saying that "David is 
not ascended into the heavens! (Acts ii. 34.) The truth 
is, there was not a shadow of an attempt to overthrow this 
position. It stands as firm as the foundations of earth, and 
fiefies all assault. 

Btii I proved conclusively that the xv. of 1 Corinthians 



UNI VERBALISM. 



339 



was inadequate to his doctrine, and utterly unappropriate 
to a cause like his. He asserted n moral change in the 
resurrection, this chapter proves only a physical change. 
His cause demands a change of soul after death; this 
chapter proves only a change of body! To urge a moral, 
from a pky&ieal change, is about such an enterprize in ra- 
tiocination, as to urge that the sun, moon, and stars 
- ; adamantine spheres are wheeled through iho void im- 
mense," by the ten commavdmm/s! 

These seven inferences, he called the seven pillars of 
Universal ism, and when he had finished them, he said, his 
icork u:n - done ! He accomplished this in two days, — in 
just half the time he himself proposed to discuss the sub- 
ject! But it was a light work, and no marvel then that it 
was so soon accomplished. And such pillars, forsooth! 
They remind one of the notion ascribed to some ancient 
geographers: That the world stands on the back of an el- 
ephant, and the elephant stands on nothing! Such pillars 
?is these are insufficient to support a gossamer temple! — to 
uphold "trifles light as air!" And yet these are the pil- 
lars upon which he invites you to rest the mighty concerns 
of yoxxv immortal spirits! Beware! oh, beware! they will, 
they must give way; and let your souls fall into bottomless 
perdition ! 

8th. But Mr. Pingree himself seemed to distrust the 
ability of these pillars to sustain his temple, and accord- 
ingly on yesterday made another inference. It was the 
same distrust, I suppose, that induced him this morning to 
divide his pillars so as to make fourteen, concluding per 
haps, that ninnenca/. would answer as a substitute for in- 
trinsic strength. His eighth inference, as well as 1 could 
comprehend it, was something like this: The Savior said 
that not one jot or tittle of the law should fail, but thai 
all should be fulfilled; and therefore all men must be con 
formed to the law. But he strangely forgot that the law had 
its penal sanctions: " The soul that sins shall die." And 
is it written, " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all 
things written in the book of the lav/ to do them." A law 
is alike fulfilled when its requisitions arc observed, or its 
penalties enforced against its violators. Mr. Pingree must 
have forgotten (his, or surely he never would have ven- 
tured upon an inference so preposterous. Besides, as I 
have already shown, this position of Mr. Pingree's bears 



340 



DEBATE ON 



just as .strongly upon this world as the next; and proves 
really that the law has never heen violated at all! So he 
must try bis hand again. He seems to forget that his sys- 
tem has two ends — that while he is taking care of one, 
the other is running away with him. 

I have thus given, I think, a .fair account of all the main 
propositions which Mr. Pingree thought essential to his 
system. It is for you to determine upon their weight. 
There were other minor points made, not necessary to be 
touched upon in a recapitulation, and all involved in the 
major ones already noticed. I have grappled with the pil- 
lars of his edifice, knowing that in the ruin of these, the 
whole edifice must fall to the earth 1 

I will very briefly glance at the arguments adduced m 
this discussion against Universalism. The proposition in 
debate covers the whole ground of controversy belween 
Universal ists and the rest of the Christian world, of course 
it may be attacked from many points. I regret that the 
time allotted to this discussion did not permit me to go so 
fully into the subject as I wished, and as I came prepared 
to do. I have not presented more than half the matter i 
had prepared; but I trust I have presented enough for the 
occasion. In truth, my business here was properly not to 
assail but to defend; and having shown that Mr. Pingree 
had not inferred his doctrine from the Bible, my work was 
done. He had failed to make good his proposition. But 
[ not only did this, I carried the war also into the ene- 
mies territories, and assailed the monster Universalism on 
the throne of his dominions. 

I stated it as a fact, and it was admitted, that Universal- 
ism as held by Mr. Pingree owed its origin to Hosea Bal- 
lou, in 1818. True, Mr. Pingree asserted that some one 
before that time had published a book setting forth the 
same doctrine, and promised to produce it, but failed to do 
so. The book would be a literary curiosity, and ought 
to be procured and placed in some museum. It was 
also urged as a fact and admitted to be so, that all Chris- 
tians, of every creed and country, learned and unlearned, 
from the days of the Apostles to the nineteenth century, 
with perfect arid uninterrupted unanimity, had pronounc- 
ed the sentence of condemnation on Universalism. And. 
it was urged, that if they were mistaken on so important 
and fundamental a doctrine, then it must be because it was 



UNIVERSALIS M. 



341 



not revealed in the Bible. Or else how could it escape 
tfoe diligent research and critical investigation of all the 
(earned and good during the lapse of so many ages? But 
Mr. Pingree undertook to show that Universalism might 
ho in she Bible notwithstanding! Yes, it might be there, 
just as infidelity and atheism might be there! and who can 
felt, if Mr. Ballon shall succeed in proving that all Chris- 
tians, embracing the ripest scholars and profoundest think- 
ers that evev adorned the world, were incompetent to un- 
derstand the language of the Bible in relation to the soul's 
destiny, but that some bolder adventurer than he may 
ar&e and claim that aSl Christians have been mistaken re- 
specting the Lord God and our Savior? and affirm that the 
Scriptures teach that there is no God, and that Jesus 
Christ did not come into the world to save sinners? And 
why not? if Christians have all been mistaken on the 
one point, why not on the other? And if Universalism be 
a truth which for ages was rejected by all the lovers of 
the Bible, with perfect unanimity, the same cannot be al- 
l-edged of any other truth revealed of God, no matter how 
inconsiderable. If error has prevailed and been predom- 
inant in past ages of the church, there was no truth re- 
jected but has had its advocates, if not its martyrs, save 
this one of Universalism, admitting its truth! In this re- 
spect it stands alone; and pleads its truth by admitting 
that all the lovers of truth for seventeen centuries con- 
spired its destruction! 

It was also admitted that in our definitions of the word 
hell, eternal punishment, and judgment, in short, of all the 
words pertaining to this controversy, that we were sustain- 
ed by all the Apostolic Fathers, by the entire church of 
the second century, by the Greeks in whose language the 
New Testament was written, and by all scholars, critics, 
commentators, and translators of any note in all ages of 
the church. Now are not the decisions of such men, on 
points too which it is not possible they could misunder- 
stand, enough to crush forever the wild and visionary 
speculations of Universalism — that cannot boast one schol- 
ar or critic of eminence? 

Our doctrine does not depend upon inference; but upon 
passages of Scripture, as plain and as positive as those 
which assert the existence of God and the creation of the 
world. Do we believe in a state of punishment after 



DEBATE OK 



death? The Scriptures say, " The rich man died and wan 
buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment. 7 " 
Do we believe that men will be raised out of their 
graves, part to happiness and part lo misery! it is writ- 
ten, " All that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and 
shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the res- 
urrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the 
resurrection of damna .ion." Do we hold that the wicked 
will be eternally punished? It is declared in the Bible, 
" These shall go away into everlasting punishment"- — the 
wicked "shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power." Do we teach a Judgment after death? The" 
Scriptures say, *• It is appointed unto men once to die, but 
after this the Judgment." These and many othe passa- 
ges on each of these points, in their plain and obvious 
sense, and in the very strongest terms, assert our doctrine. 
And Mr. Pingree, like all his brethren, has called all his 
ingenuity and tact in'.o requisition to evade the meaning 
that naturally suggests itself to the mind of every reader! 
He has been arguing to show that while the Bible says 
one thing, it means another ! — and in the face of the posi- 
tive declaration of the word of God, says that the rich 
man was noL in torment after death! — that the wicked do 
not come forth to the resurrection of damnation !— ihey do 
not go into everlasting punishment I That there is no 
Judgment ^fter death ! In these and many other instances, 
you heard him flatly contra lict the Scriptures and charge 
God with falsehood! — saying "peace! peace!" to those 
for whom God declared there was no peace, and promis- 
ing life and light lo those whom, God affirmed should not 
see life, and that for them was reserved the blackness of 
darkness forever! 

It is because the Bible speaks thus plainly on these sub- 
jects, that all Christians were perfectly united upon them, 
for so many ages. To the learned and the unlearned, 
through common sense principles of interpretation, the 
Bible spoke the same things, because it could not speak 
any thing else, if the Bible be interpreted according to its 
plain letter — if it means what it says, our doctrine is es- 
tablished beyond controversy, and Universalism subverted 
beyond recovery! 

We proved that all punishment was not disciplinary — 



V N I V E R S A L I S M . 



343 



not inflicted for the individual good of the sinner. Thai 
this doctrine, so vital to Universalism, was contrary to rea- 
son, and contradictory to the plain declarations of Holy 
Writ. It is unnecessary to refer to Mr. Pingree's efforts 
at reply on this point. You cannot have forgotten them. 

We next proved that this life was not a state of perfect 
retribution. Eight or more propositions were presented in 
proof of this positon; which received scarcely a passing 
notice. They remain unanswered; a tolerably clear in- 
dication that, in the opinion of my opponent, they were 
unanswerable! 

Our next position was, that there is a future state of re- 
wards and punishments. We presented six propositions ; 
the principle answer to which was a complaint that we 
quoted too many passages of Scripture! 

We then showed that the future estates of men would 
be eternal. We argued that the eternal punishment of 
the wicked necessarily followed from the arguments of 
the Universalists themselves — that it was taught in the 
same terms as the existence of God, and the duration of 
the happiness of the righteous — in the very strongest 
terms it was possible to employ; and I requested Mr. Pin- 
gree to state, if stronger words to express endless dura- 
tion, than those employed, were to be found in the Greek 
language. He did not pretend that there were. It is con- 
fessed then, and true, if Mr. Pingree is capable of defend- 
ing his cause, that the endless duration of future punish- 
ment is expressed in the very strongest terms the Greek 
language could furnish; and the Greek is the most copious 
language ever spoken. It was also conceded that the lit- 
eral and common meaning of aionios was endless; and that, 
therefore, when connected with punishment, unless it was 
shown to be used in a figurative and uncommon sense, it 
taught that punishment was endless. Thus making it 
manifest again that Universalism, to be true, had to prove 
that the letter of the Bible was not true, in a case like 
this ! 

But Mr. Pingree made a concession this morning that 
settles this controversy. This was the admission, (it was 
made in reference to Matt. xxv. 46:) " We admit that ev- 
erlasting punishment is expressed by the same word as 
life eternal-, and that one is just as long as the other!" 
He seems -to speak for himself and brethren — that this 



344 



DEBATE ON 



was the doctrine of Universalism — that the terms are the 
same, and the eternal punishment of the wicked is just as 
long as the eternal life of the righteous! Well, I invite 
Mr. Pingree's attention to just one passage in the New 
Testament. I hope he will open his ears and listen atten- 
tively; for I now expect to convert him. Indeed, I insist 
he must be converted; for I intend to show that this eter- 
nal life extends beyond this world. It is John xri. 25: 
" He that loveth bis life shall lose it,- and he that hateth 
his life in this worW — [it is kosmos in Greek, Mr. Pingree. 
and cannot mean "age," or "state," or any thing of the 
sort, but simply what we vulgarly term the " world," or 
" the earth,"] — « he that hateth his life in this world shall 
keep unto life eternal." Here then is promised, after 
the life of this world is lost, the life eternal. 

Mr. Pingree. I did not assert that " eternal life" was 
always confined to this world. I w r as speaking of Matt, 
xxv. 46: where it means spiritual life — the life enjoyed 
through the Gospel. Though I do not deny that it is 
sometimes applied to the immortal state. 

Mr. Waller. You certainly contended that the term 
everlasting, applied to the life of the righteous and to the 
punishment of the wicked, meant the same thing in each- 
case — that " one was just as long as the other." 

Mr. Pingree. Not in the passage you just read; bus 
in the text then under consideration. 

Mr. Waller. You did not say in what passage; your 
remark was a general one. Nor am I willing to admit 
that the phrase " eternal life" changes its meanings, as of- 
ten as the chameleon its color, for the especial benefit of 
our Universal ist friends. To say that " eternal life" means 
spiritual life, is an assumption without a shadow of found- 
ation. Universalists pretend to predicate this definition 
on the passages which declare that the believer " hath ev- 
erlasting life." Well, believers have immortal souls. 
And if one is limited to this life, why not the other? If 
the "everlasting life" terminates at the grave, why not the 

immortal soul?" This everlasting life, like the soul, 
commences in this world, and extends through eternity. 
The word aionios expresses duration, and does not mean 
spiritual. For such a definition it has only the declaration 
wrung from Universalism by the anguish of its death 
struggles! Take home with you, then, the fact forced 



UNIVERSALIS!*. 



345 



from the unwilling lips of Mr. Pingree, that the punish- 
ment OF THE WICKED IS AS ENDURING AS THE EVERLAST- 
ING life of the righteous ! ! ! 1 knew that this admis- 
sion would have to come. I have been trying to get it from 
him for several days. He has struggled against it as long 
as he could, and only brought it out in the last extremity. 
But it has come, and settles the controversy forever. With 
this concession, Universalism sinks lower than Hades! 

I also disproved the Universalist system by showing that 
there was after death a "Judgment" — a day when all must 
stand before the "judgment seat of Christ.'" The proofs 
on this point were many — expressed in language so plain 
that he who runs may read. Mr. Pingree made a faint 
effort to show that the passages adduced applied mainly to 
the destruction of Jerusalem. As a specimen of the straits 
lo which he felt himself reduced, I need only to refer you 
to what he said in his comments on the xxiv. and xxv. 
chapters of Matt. I first understood him to apply every 
thing in these chapters to the destruction of Jerusalem. 
This morning, however, he tells us, that he did not say 
they were all fulfilled at that time — they only commenced 
then, and have been fulfilling ever since. And then turn- 
ed right round, and demonstrated to his entire satisfaction, 
that the generation of men then living did not pass away 
until "all these things were fulfilled !!" You all ob- 
served the contradiction! And how, 1 demand, could all 
these things have been fulfilled in the life time of the then 
generation of men, as Mr. Pingree and all Universalists 
affirm, and yet it should be true that some of them are 
now being fulfilled, and others remain still to be fulfilled? 

Mr. Pingree arose to explain: I said that what Jesus 
Christ said in refernce to judgment, etc., were fulfilled in 
that generation: but that his coming to reign in his king- 
dom, to judge the world, etc., though it begun then, pro- 
gressed after the destruction of Jerusalem, and continues 
now. I thought I explained my position clearly. 

Mr. Waller. I do not see that the gentleman is at ali 
benefited by his explanation. How can he except such 
things as suit his convenience, after asserting that "ALL 
these things" were fulfilled in that generation? it stilt 
presents a palpable contradiction. l.i needs no comment, 
ft is to be expected, that when men try to wrest the Scrip- 



346 



DEBATE ON 



tures from their true meaning to suit some darling story, 
they will become involved in contradiction. 

I also objected to Universalism, or to the " Ultimate holi- 
ness and salvation of all men," from the use of the terms 
Gehenna and Tartarus in the Scriptures; showing that these 
words were understood, by the people to whom Jesus and 
his Apostles preached to mean a state of everlasting pun- 
ishment for the wicked in a state of future life. That 
while Jesus knew the Jews of his day attached to Gehenna 
that meaning which now in the English language is at- 
tached to the wiird Hell; and while he knew they held to 
the endless punishment of the wicked; yet he did not re- 
prove them for it ; which, if it was an error, is most unac- 
countable, seeing that he faithfully and frequently chided 
them for their errors and heresies. Nay, he not only did 
not charge them with error in this matter, but spoke to 
them as if it were true; asking them, " how could they 
escape the damnation of GehennaV and warning them to 
fear him, who after he hath killed, had power " to des- 
troy both soul and body in Gehenna. 1 '' etc. etc. He used 
the word precisely as if the then Jewish definition of it 
was the true one. There is not a syllable in all the New 
Testament remotely charging the Jews with being wrong 
on this ^subject. L'an we believe that the blessed Savior 
would have connived at an error so fatal to the truth and 
to the best interests of men, as the Universalists declare 
the belief of future punishments to be? Why should Je- 
sus be so silent and they so clamorous upon the doctrine; 
seeing that he as well as they were surrounded by Par- 
tialis is? 

The apostles too pursued the same course with the Jews. 
They went among the Gentiles, who also believed that the 
wicked would be punished after death — that for the aban- 
doned and the abominable were reserved the unquencha- 
ble fires of the fearful Tartarus: and while the apostles 
reproved them for their errors, they never intimated that 
they erred upon this all important subject. On the con- 
trary, they preached to them precisely as if it was true ; 
and in terms and phrases which, if interpreted literally, 
could mean only that men were punished in the lake of 
fire. If they meant what they said, the Gentiles to whom 
they preached, must have believed that they taught a pun* 
ishment for the ungodly and unbelieving in a future state. 



UNIVERSALIS!*. 



347 



Had they been Universalists, as honest men, could they 
have acted thus? Would they have concealed the truth 
from the nations? Would they have suffered the heathen 
to believe such a monstrous falsehood, and utter no word 
of warning or reproof? The course of Mr. Pingree, and 
of all Universalists, who make this the burden of their 
every discourse, answers no! NO! They would from the 
house tops have proclaimed against it. If there is any 
virtue, if any consolation — if any truth in Universalism; 
and especially if it abounds in all these thing, as Mr. Pin- 
gree and his brethren tell us it does, how could the apos- 
tles hold their peace on the subject? How dare they re- 
frain from deluging the souls of their hearers with (his 
flood of celestial light? But they concealed their light. 
They put it under a bushel! I insist upon it, if Universal- 
ism be true, the conduct of the apostles is not only unac- 
countable, but wholly inexcusable. They did not dis- 
charge the trust committed to their hands. But as we 
cannot believe this, it follows that Universalism is the most 
improbable of all falsehoods. 

But Mr. Pingree urges again, because it is indispensible 
to his system, that Christians cannot commune together in 
this world, and therefore cannot hereafter, unless changed 
after death. Now, [ had supposed that ail Christians, ac- 
quainted with one another, did commune together. They 
are brethren, animated by the same spirit, sustained by 
the same faith, cheered by the same hope, and journeying 
the same road lo the same sweet and glorious home. And 
if Christians, they have the spirit of Christ, and love one 
another; and if this be not communion — if this be not the 
golden chain that shall bind together the souls of the re- 
deemed in the regions of the blessed, I confess I am in 
midnight darkness upon the subject. Each Christian feels 
in relation to all he knows to be Christians, no matter what 
their stations in life; or color, or creed, or country, a sym- 
pathy and relationship, higher and holier than any natur- 
al tie; and there is among all Christians, acquainted with 
each other, a mingling of hearts and sympathies, at once 
sweet and hallowed, that afford a rich foretaste of the 
heavenly union of all the sanctified, in glory. Christians 
do cherish feelings of communion with each other. 

Mr. Pingree. I think the gentleman is mistaken. 

Mr. Waller. Well, perhaps there are some who do 



348 



DEBATE ON 



not. But they are in a state of back-sliding. They have 
lost their first love. They are not in the enjoyment of 
religion. The love of the Savior is not shed abroad in 
their hearts. They have not the spirit of Christ. But 
God will not let them die in this way. He will reclaim 
them. But the gentleman means, I know, that we do not 
all sit down at the Lord's table together. But that is nb 
evidence of a want of communion — it is not communion 
with each other at all. The supper was never instituted 
for any such purpose. It was designed to show forth the 
Lord's death until he comes a second time without sin 
unto salvation. If Christians were to commune together 
in this way only, there would, indeed, be very little Chris- 
tian communion in this world. There sits the venerable 
father Scott, and I see many others of my brethren here, 
belonging to the same denomination with myself, with 
whom I never sat at the Lord's table. Is it, therefore, to 
be concluded that we have never communed as Christians 
together? With many of them I have held sweet com- 
munion. I solemnly declare that I know not the lover of 
my blessed Savior upon earth for whom I have not Chris- 
tian fellowship, and would not hold Christian communion: 
that same communion, only less in degree, that I hope to 
hold with him in heaven. I trust, I have said enough upon 
this subject. If Mr. Pingree or any other gentleman of 
standing among his brethren has any thing to say against 
the Baptists not inviting to the Lord's table, those whom the 
Lord himself has not invited, at a suitable time, and on a 
proper occasion, he will not find me wanting in all proper 
attentions to him. But this is not a subject to justify the 
introduction of such matters. 

Mr. Pingree further urged, in his last speech, that unless 
a moral change was effected after death, admitting our doc- 
trine to be true, the saved would sympathize so keenly 
with the lost, as to be miserable, instead of being happy, 
in heaven: And in favor of his own doctrine, drew the 
conclusion, that in order to secure the happiness of the 
righteous, it was requisite that all men should be saved. 
I answered this objection last evening, I believe. The 
mistake of Mr. Pingree owes itself to his not draw- 
ing the proper distinction between moral relations 
and natural relations. The Christian is not of those 
who walk after the flesh, but of those who walk after 



UNIVERSALIS*!. 



349 



the spirit. He will be delivered from the body of this 
death. His mind that now serves the law of God will 
then be emancipated from its thraldom of flesh. The 
mind will then be free from the ties of natural affections, 
and the attachments formed here based upon those affec- 
tions merely, will all be cast off when this corruptible 
shall put on ineorruption. All his natural relations are 
destroyed in death; and his moral relations only survive. 
His natural sympathies and his flesh are left in the grave. 
But all of this I demonstrated on yesterday; let us, there- 
fore, return to the work of recapitulation. 

I showed that the Universalists had false notions of the 
true end and aim of punishment, and that especially they 
were mistaken in their views of what we taught upon this 
subject. On this branch of the subject, we proved that to 
punish the violator of a law established for the good of so- 
ciety, was right and just; and not to punish was a flagrant 
outrage upon the well being and rights of the unoffend- 
ing and the virtuous — was to favor the bad at the expense 
of the good. This is the principle upon which all human 
governments are based. God has given his intelligent 
creatures a law — it is designed for the good of the whole. 
He that violates that law inflicts a wrong upon all intelligent 
creatures; and if he is not punished for his course, then his 
welfare is more regarded than theirs: and others are encour- 
aged to trespass, and thus the whole social system of the mor^ 
al Universe is endangered. It is just and right then that the 
transgressor should be punished. But even Universalism 
admits that punishment is right; but they say it should no): 
continue forever. But who made them the judge? They 
admit that all are saved by grace, and that no one can bo 
saved in any other way. Well, who has a right to de- 
mand grace? Is God bound to be gracious to sinners? If 
not, he is not bound to save them. Consequently might, 
i i righteousness and justice, leave them forever unsaved 
— lost. And this is all we contend for. Besides, we proved 
that the sinner did not want to be saved — that he loved 
darkness rather than light — that he would not come unto 
Jesus that he might have life. Is Universalism itself im- 
pudent enough to urge that God should save those who 
will not be saved? — who spurn the mercy of God? — and 
will not that Christ Jesus should reign over them? And 
(hat because we teach that God will not force men to be 



DEBATE ON 



saved, that therefore we teach that he is unmerciful and 
does not love his creatures? If he were to force his will, 
man would cease to be a free moral agent; and consequent- 
ly as incapable of virtue or vice as a stock or a stone. 

It is clear then that the everlasting destruction of the 
ungodly from the presence of God and the glory of his 
power is fownded in justice and righteousness — is the 
necessary result of the nature of things: for unles- it could 
be shown that the sinners moral being could be changed 
after death, where the gospel is not, then it is in vain to 
urge his salvntion. God extends no grace to the sinner in 
the next world: he makes no proclamation of peace and 
pardon there: and if grace be withheld and the door of 
mercy closed, how can the sinner there be saved? You re- 
member that Mr. Pingree acknowledged that here his sys- 
tym led h.m into utter darkness — that it furnished no solu- 
tion of such inquiries. 1 marvel at the temerity which ven- 
tures beyond the light of revelation, and defies the horrors 
of a gloom more dreary than the night of the grave! 

I expressed my apprehensions that Universal ism tended 
to immorality, i mean nothing disrespectful to the mem- 
bers of that persuasion. I prefer no charge against them. 
Far from it. I have but very few acquaintances among 
them, ana 1 I take great pleasure in testifying to the moral 
worth of those few. But men do not always practice ac- 
cording to their doctrine. To the system then, and not to 
the professors, my remarks must be understood as apply- 
ing. I may pursue this to its legitimate consequences 
without at all impugning the conduct or motives of its ad- 
vocates. 

The future is the polar star of our being — the main- 
spring of human action. " Man never is, but to be blessed. i: 
it is in reference to the happiness that mankind think they 
disqry in the distance, that men toil and labor for worldly 
gain. For this they fell the forest, till the ground, make 
farms, build cities, construct highways, dig canals, launch 
the steamer, and spread the canvass to every breeze! Jt 
is this that stimulates them to brave any danger, to en- 
counter any difficulty, to forego ease, and comfort, and 
quietude — they see in the future more than a recompense 
for every sacrifice and more than a solace for every sor- 
row. They are cheered in the night of their toil by the 
Hash of celestial light which darts tii rough the portals qf 



TTIflVERSALISM. 



361 



their blissful home; and occasionally they inhale a breeze* 
1'ragrant from the spice fields of the land of their delight, 
Take this prospect from the vision — destroy the hope set 
before them — and at once you remove the motive of their 
exertion and enterprize, and they sink into inaction and 
despair. It is not the pleasure of labor, but its promises 
of good, that stimulate to industry. These principles ap- 
ply to the great subject of religion. Admit there is no 
hereafter, and then says the Apostle, there is no sense in 
being religious. ' ; Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow 
we die." He clearly did not agree with the Universalists 
that the benefits of religion were confined exclusively to this 
life. For were this the case, says he. we are of all men 
most miserable." It was the future that gave to religion 
its consolations. And although persecuted and hated of all 
men — exposed to every peril and every privation, he es- 
teemed these but light afflictions which were for a moment 
and which would work for him a far more exceeding and 
eternal weight of glory. ki For in this we groan, earnest- 
ly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is 
from heaven.*' It is the lively hope of an inheritance 
incorruptible, and undetiled, and that fadeth not away*' in 
reserve for him, that cheers the Christian in his dreary 
pilgrimage through life. It is the bright and glorious fu- 
ture that is set before him in the Gospel, that makes him 
count his life as nothing and leads him to forsake houses, 
and lands, and wife, and children, and every earthly bless- 
ing for the religion of Jesus. 

Universalism destroys this hope of the Christian, by de- 
claring that God will not render eternal life in the future 
to those who, by patient continuing in well doing, seek for 
glory, and honor, and immortality. " The hope of heaven, 
on the principles of that system, furnishes no motive to 
Christian action and can pour no oil of consolation into 
the stricken heart of the pious man when persecuted for 
righteousness* sake. Nay. why should he suffer for reli- 
gion? — why endure the natred of the world and the frown 
m relations? — why embrace a martyr's stake, seeing there 
is no martyr's crown? What does the man gain who is 
burned for his religion, any more than he who is hung for 
his crimes, seeing they both go to enjoy eternal lite? Ha* 
our religion any consolations arising from a hope of heav- 
en? Docs it impart sweet comfort in the sick and dying 



352 



DEBATE ON 



hour, because of the hope that soon, free from all sorrow 
and pain, we shall enter upon the fruition of unfading 
happiness? If so, Universalism is a fraud and a falsehood, 
for it tells us that our religion has nothing to do with a fu- 
ture life — that its ends and hopes are confined to this 
evanescent world ! 

But it not only robs the Christian of his hope and tears 
from him all motive of running with patience the race that is 
set before him in view of the crown laid up in heaven for all 
that love our Lord Jesus, but it ministers an opiate to the con- 
science of ungodly men. It tells them, it is true, that they 
will suffer full and adequate punishment for all their sins, 
but that they will suffer it in this life. And what of that? 
Hare they not just as much to encourage them under their 
sufferings for sin, as Christians have under their sufferings 
for righteousness' sake? And what are all the sufferings 
of this life? They will soon be over. And then these 
sufferings work for the sinner a far more exceeding and 
eternal weight of glory!! Surely, then the drunkard, the 
liar, and all the abominable and unclean, may run with 
patience their race! They are on their journey home! 
They will get to heaven before many a Christian; for 
many of them will not live out half their days! And then 
if they should become weary of life; — if "the stings and 
arrows of outrageous fortune," and "the heart-ache, and 
the thousand natural shocks that flesh ts heir to;" and if 

"The whips and scons of time, 

The oppressor's wronjr, the proud man's contumely, 
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, 
The insolence of office, and the spurns" 

which he must take from the unworthy, become insupporta- 
ble, why he "might his quietus make with a bare bodkin !'" 
tie might "shuffle off this mortal coil" by means of a dose 
of laudanum, by a bullet in his brains, or a dagger in his 
heart!" And surely 44 it is nobler in the mind to suffer* 
stick wrongs and miseries, when we can so easily " take 
arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them," 
and die and enjoy ineffable happiness and glory, world 
without end! And surely if Destructionism says to tho 
sinner, 44 Let. us eat and drink for to-morrow we die," Uni- 
versalism may echo the sentiment, and 44 roll the rapturous 
hosannah round" the world of sinners, — 44 Eat and drink, 
u>: to-morrow you die, and go to heaven l" If Universal- 



UKITSRSALISM- 



363 



ism be true, then verily Christianity is a most miserable 
farce ! 

And what advantage hath a Universalist? and what pro' 
fit is there in Universalism? None whatever. Grant that 
men are in sin and misery: — -does not Universalism say 
they were ordained of God for the good of man? And 
will its ministers frustrate the purposes of the Most High, 
and urge an exterminating warfare upon his schemes of 
benevolence? " Woe unto the man that striveth with his 
Maker!" They should let the sinner alone ! He is walk- 
ing in the paths that God has ordained for him; and ther 
must be paths of pleasantness and peace, for infinite Wis- 
dom devised them for his good! And suppose that " Par* 
UaHsm" is an error and a sin, tending to make men miser- 
able. Universalism assures us that it exists by the fiat of 
God. It is his pleasure that it should exist; and he will 
do all his pleasure. Besides it can do no harm: for, sup- 
posing that men suffer from it, it is for their good! Men 
only suffer for their good ! ! All punishment is discipli- 
nary; and any miseries men may experience from " Par- 
tialism," are but for a moment, and work for them a far 
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory ! And admit- 
ting Universalism to be true, man can gain nothing by em- 
bracing it, and lose nothing by opposing it. In either case, 
he but fulfils his destiny, and does what has been done for 
his good! The Universalist preacher, in calling upon men 
to change their sentiments and embrace his system, abuses 
man and insults God! — abuses man in asking him to do 
what he cannot, more than a log or a stump; and insults 
God by presuming to subvert his benevolent operations in 
behalf of his creatures! The brain of madness never 
projected a scheme more extravagantly foolish than that 
of Universalism! 

But if it should turn out, that it is not only a system of 
folly, but of egregious falsehood, how fearfully dangerous 
is it! — a moral simoon, poisoned and heated by hell, 
blowing in terrible tempest over the soul! Every consid- 
eration then warns you against its embrace. If true, it 
can speak no promise; and if false, it utters the thunders 
of perdition! 

If there is no punishment hereafter 5 and all are happy 
when they die, the murderer and the assassin are philan- 
thropists! — they are doing the greatest amount ot good 
23 



m 



DEBATE ON 



possible to their fellow-men— taking them from misery and 
sending them to heaven! War too is the greatest of bles- 
sings to mankind! And all the conquerors that ambition 
ever begat, " from Macedonia's madman to the Sweed,' 1 
who have polluted the earth with the blood of innocence, 
and washed it with the tears of the bereaved and the wid- 
owed, were engaged in the benevolent work of making 
immortal souls, heirs of glory! And the Savior then mis= 
took the most efficient way of establishing his kingdom. 
Instead of sending out his Apostles alone and unprotected 
in the world, to preach the Gospel, he should have sent 
them out at the head of formidable armies, to kill and to 
destroy mankind, and thus " compel them to come" into 
heaven ! 

But Mr. Pingree made an effort this morning to offset this, 
by showing that our doctrine was as bad as his, for we held 
to the salvation of infants; then, said he, it is a good work 
to kill them, and thus save them from the evil of the 
world! But the cases are not analagous. The law of 
God forbids their murder; and he that should do the deed 
is liable to eternal damnation; for no murderer shall in- 
herit the kingdom of God. Not so, however, on the_other 
hand: the murderer does not endanger his soul; and even 
granting he should be punished here ; it would only be for 
his good, and secure to him the greater glory hereafter! 

But there was an inference in Mr. Pingree's last speech 
that I have almost forgot to notice. Because it is written, 
That in Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth shall be 
Messed, therefore, the gentleman argues, all men will be 
saved. The conclusions do not necessarily follow upon 
the premises. If he will take the trouble to study care- 
fully the 3rd chapter of Galatians, he will find that these 
blessings come upon men through faith. By the "seed'" of 
Abraham, our blessed Savior is meant. Through him, all 
our temporal blessings come. In this sense, all nations 
have been blessed in him. But doubtless, in the text re- 
ferred to, spiritual blessings are meant. These have come 
to many nations. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the rich- 
est boon of heaven. Our nation is blessed in its posses- 
sion; and how many blessings it has diffused among the 
nations of the civilized world! And 1 am persuaded the 
promise will be strictly fulfilled. The prophecies certain- 
ly teach, in the plainest language possible, that the heath- 



UNIVERSALIS M, 



en are to be given to the Savior for an inheritance and 
the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession, The 
stone, in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, which was cast 
out of the mountain without bands, became a mountain, 
and filled the whole earth, and this stone was the king- 
dom which the Lord God should set up. And it is declar- 
ed also by Daniel the prophet, that " the greatness of the 
kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the 
people of the saints of the Most High." The Scrip- 
tures abound with glowing descriptions of a period of 
rest and prosperity to the people of God, when the king- 
doms of this world shall became the kingdoms of our Lord 
and his Christ — when Jesus shall reign king of nations a* 
he is now king of saints. 

The Jews, before the coming of Messiah, understood * 
millenium of rest, when triumphant over all their ene- 
mies, the people of God should prevail over all the earth 
a thousand years, to be taught in the writings of their 
prophets. Christians generally, in every age since the 
Savior, have so understood the Bible. It is evident, to say 
the least, that it is far more reasonable to infer that it is in 
some such way the nations are to be blessed in the seed of 
Abraham, than to infer from ihe passage alluded to UnU 
versalism. with all its long train of absurdities and contra- 
dictions. 

There is another idea connected with this matter which 
I will throw out merely as a speculation; it is: Thai 
more will be saved ihan lost. This has nothing to do with 
our controversy with Universalism, as God might, without 
wrong to any, have permitted all to be lost: still it maybe 
interesting as a truth. Already, we know, there is a great 
company in heaven which no man can number; and what 
a host shall still be saved, when that glorious period shall 
be realized, so long the burden of every prayer, when 
God's will shall be done in earth as it is done in heaven. 
The duration of that period of course is a matter of con- 
jecture. Some suppose it will continue 360,000, and I see 
no reason why this should not be so. But be this as it 
may, I hesitate not to say, that the amount of happiness will 
be much greater than if man had not fallen. Every soul 
redeemed enjoys an affinity of bliss above what he could 
have enjoyed, had he forever remained in the primeval 
abode of man. Take then into the account, the happiness 



5EEATK O N 



of all the redeemed, how incalculable the increase of hap- 
piness beyond what it could have been had man remained 
m he was created! God has overruled evil for good. 

I deem it unnecessary to notice any other particulars 
brought up by Mr. Pingree in his last speech. I am not 
aware that either then or in any former speech, he ad- 
vanced any thing of importance which I have not attended 
to. If so, the omission has been without design; and must 
now remain without an ansvver, as time admonishes me to 
draw to a conclusion. 

My friends! perhaps I address you for the last time. 
In a few hours, I leave this place, it may be forever. But 
just recovering from a severe and protracted illness, my 
health still unsettled, and my conslitution greatly impair- 
ed, I can make no calculations relating to the events of 
this life. Since I was last in this place, I have been called 
upon to look death in the face; for some time not know- 
ing what hour I should be summoned to the eternal world. 
I think I then experienced some of the sweets of religion, 
and especially the value of its consolations on a sick bed, 
in prospect of the grave. How empty then the world and 
all its pleasures! And how precious then the glorious 
hope, that when heart and flesh shall fail, heaven, happi- 
ness, eternal joys shall be ours ! How pleasant to feel then, 
when kindred and friends must forsake us, that Jesus will 
take us, and in his own everlasting arms, bear us safely 
over the dark, cold waves of death, to glory and to God! 
This Savior I confidently hold up, as able to save to the 
uttermost all who will come unto God through him. Be- 
lieve on him and you shall have everlasting life. And 
there is no other name but his, given under heaven or 
among men whereby we must be saved. Lean on his 
strong arm for salvation, and though called to pass through 
the valley of the shadow of death, you need fear no evil. 
But I am not informed of any promise of salvation to 
those out of Jesus Christ; and at this, perhaps the last 
time you will ever hear my voice, I warn you solemnly 
not to trust the tremendous concerns of your souls to 
another. 

I thank you all for the kind, courteous, and respectful 
attention you have given this discussion. I thank you, 
citizens of Warsaw, for the many instances of kindness, 
attention, and hospitality which I have received at your 



IWITIESALI8M, 



357 



bands. May heaven's choicest blessings be yours. I am 
happy to believe that no unkind feelings have sprung up 
from this ^rebate, but that the speakers and their respec- 
tive brethren, will part as they met— -friends. And to 
you, Messrs. Moderators, 1 render my most heart-felt ac- 
knowledgments for the patience and impartiality with 
which you have presided over our discussion. Be assured 
for this you will ever have my most grateful recollections. 
And in taking this my public leave of Mr. Pingree, permit 
me to assure him, though we widely differ on one of the 
most vitally important doctrines of the Bible, that I enter- 
tain for him personally no other than the kindest feelings. 
And humbly pray through Jesus Christ, that when all our 
differences of opinion shall be sunk in the grave, we shall 
meet and mingle in a better and a brighter world. 



AUG -0 1241 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



